1. A petition challenged an order directing recovery of maintenance arrears, primarily disputing the limitation period applicable to maintenance recovered from the date of the underlying application. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 34184
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Farjand Ali, J
Het Ram – Appellant
Versus
Murti Devi – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3069/2023
Important Points
Arrears of maintenance awarded retrospectively from the date of application become legally "due" and recoverable from the date the order is passed; thus, the twelve-month limitation period under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. commences from the date of the order.
Subject
Criminal - Maintenance
Act Referred
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: S.482, S.125(3)
Headnote
(A) Maintenance - Recovery of Arrears - Limitation Period - Where maintenance is awarded retrospectively from the date of application, the consolidated arrears become "due" and recoverable from the date of the judicial order, not from the date of the application. (Para 4.3, 4.4)
(B) Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. - Interpretation - The twelve-month limitation for recovery is reckoned from the date the amount becomes legally enforceable via a court order, regardless of the length of the retrospective period covered. (Para 4.4)
Issues: Whether arrears of maintenance awarded retrospectively from the date of application are subject to the twelve-month limitation period from the date of application or from the date of the order.
(B) Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. - Interpretation - The twelve-month limitation for recovery is reckoned from the date the amount becomes legally enforceable via a court order, regardless of the length of the retrospective period covered. (Para 4.4)
Issues: Whether arrears of maintenance awarded retrospectively from the date of application are subject to the twelve-month limitation period from the date of application or from the date of the order.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Dhaka
For the Respondents: Kuldeep Sharma, Vikram Rajpurohit
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sunil Dhaka
For the Respondents: Kuldeep Sharma, Vikram Rajpurohit
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner contended that recovery of maintenance exceeding twelve months is time-barred under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., while the respondent sought recovery of accumulated arrears. (Para 2 , 4 )
3. The court observed that maintenance arrears become enforceable only upon the passing of a judicial order, meaning the limitation period commences from that order, not the application date. (Para 4 )
4. The petition challenging the recovery order was dismissed, confirming that the initiation of recovery proceedings promptly following the maintenance order was within the prescribed limitation period. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
5. When does the limitation period for recovering maintenance arrears under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. begin?
The limitation period begins when the maintenance amount becomes due and enforceable, which occurs upon the passing of the court order awarding maintenance, rather than the earlier date of filing the application. (Para 4 )
6. How is the limitation period applied to maintenance arrears accrued retrospectively from the date of application?
Arrears covering the duration from the filing of the application to the date of the award are considered to have become due only upon the court's order; thus, the limitation period for recovery starts from that order date. (Para 5 )
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 22/07/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 22/07/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/10/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Case No. 135/2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of arrears of interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 2,20,000/-, alleging non-payment by the petitioner. The petitioner opposed the application on the ground that recovery could not be sought for a period exceeding twelve months. However, vide order dated 11.05.2023, the learned court below allowed the application and directed issuance of an attachment warrant in respect of the petitioner’s agricultural land for recovery of the outstanding amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.
4. The controversy involved in the present petition revolves around the interpretation of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., particularly the expression “date on which the amount becomes due” occurring therein. The proviso of Section 125(3) prescribes a period of limitation of twelve months for seeking recovery of an amount due under an order of maintenance, reckoned from the date on which such amount becomes due.
4.1 In the present case, the application seeking maintenance was instituted on 05.08.2020, whereas the learned Court below, vide order dated 04.06.2022, awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent, with effect from the date of filing of the application. The amount sought to be recovered, therefore, includes the arrears calculated for the period commencing from 05.08.2020 and ending on 04.06.2022.
4.2 The question which arises for consideration is whether the aforesaid arrears can be treated as having become due on the respective dates to which they relate or whether the enforceable right to recover the consolidated amount accrued upon the passing of the order dated 04.06.2022. In the considered opinion of this Court, the distinction between the period for which maintenance has been awarded and the point of time when the amount became recoverable under the judicial direction assumes significance.
4.3 Prior to the passing of the order dated 04.06.2022, the respondent did not possess an enforceable order directing payment of maintenance. It was only upon the passing of the said order entitling the wife to recover maintenance, including the arrears directed to be paid retrospectively from the date of the application, crystallised. The direction to make payment from the date of institution of the application determines the period for which maintenance is payable; it does not, in the facts of the present case, warrant treating the entire amount covered by the order as having become recoverable even before the order itself came into existence. In other words, it can be said that prior to order dated 04.06.2022, the amount did not become due.
4.4 Consequently, the arrears for the period from 05.08.2020 to 04.06.2022 became recoverable pursuant to the order dated 04.06.2022 and not before passing of the above order. The application seeking recovery of the said amount was presented on 27.06.2022, i.e., within a period of less than one month from the date on which the order was passed. The objection that the recovery application pertaining to a period exceeding twelve months, cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the arrears were calculated for a period of approximately twenty-two months. The statutory limitat
