Recovery of maintenance arrears can proceed beyond one year if a court order allows subsequent claims to be filed.

J U D G M E N T

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 demand notice issued to recover the maintenance amount due to the 3^rd respondent in M.C.No.120 of 2010 of the Family Court, Kottayam (for short 'the court below').

2. The petitioner is the husband of the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent filed M.C.No.120 of 2010 claiming maintenance. Maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- to the 3^rd respondent, Rs.1,000/- to the elder child and Rs.500/- to the younger child were allowed. Since the petitioner defaulted the payment of maintenance, execution petition was filed and consequently Ext.P2 demand notice under the Revenue Recovery Act to realize the sum of Rs.68,000/- was issued. It is under challenge in this original petition.

3. Heard and perused the records.

4. The only contention raised in this original petition is that the recovery of the arrears of amount is illegal, in the light of the proviso to Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C., since the amount sought to be recovered is the amount due for a period of more than one year. Initially, the 3^rd respondent filed C.M.P.No.281 of 2012 to recover the amount due till the filing of that petition. It was filed within one year. But since the petitioner was abroad, summons could not be served to him. Hence, the said petition was closed with liberty to claim the amount covered by that petition also in fresh CMP to be filed later. Ext.R3(a) is the said order. It was thereafter the 3^rd respondent filed C.M.P.No.123 of 2013 and consequently, Ext.P2 demand notice was issued. In view of the liberty granted in Ext.R3(a) order, there is absolutely no illegality in recovering the entire maintenance arrears as stated in Ext.P3 petition. Therefore, the demand made as per Ext.P2 is perfectly legal and valid.

Hence, this Original Petition (Criminal) is dismissed.