IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.705 of 2025 DATE: 26.03.2026 BETWEEN:

Chapala Sri Ramulu …..petitioner And Chapala Ramya Sri @ Nagar Rani and another …..Respondents

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 in M.C.No.4 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent– husband filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 in M.C. No.4 of 2015. Originally, the petitioner–wife filed M.C.No.4 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and by order dated 29.07.2016, the trial Court granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in her favour from the date of the order. Alleging that the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance, the respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of arrears of Rs.51,000/- for the period from 29.07.2018 to 28.12.2019. The petitioner opposed the petition contending that the claim was barred by limitation. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held that arrears could be claimed only within one year prior to filing of the petition and accordingly partly allowed the petition, directing the respondent to pay Rs.36,000/- towards arrears of maintenance for the period from 01.01.2019 to 28.12.2019, with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment, which order is assailed in the present revision.

3. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State. Though notice served upon respondent No.1, none appeared on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous, contrary to law and the material on record and that the petition filed by the respondent–wife under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance was barred by limitation, as the same was filed on 10.01.2020 seeking arrears for the period from 29.07.2018 to 28.12.2019, which is beyond the period of one year prescribed under law. He further submitted that the trial Court failed to properly consider the objection raised by the petitioner regarding limitation. He contended that the respondent has already remarried and the petitioner has obtained evidence to that effect and has initiated appropriate proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of the maintenance order, which are pending consideration and that the parties are no longer husband and wife, as the petitioner has also obtained a decree of divorce in F.C.O.P.No.1109 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, and therefore the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance.

Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is legal and well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference by this Court. He further submitted that the trial Court, after considering the material available on record, rightly held that the respondent–wife is entitled to recover arrears of maintenance only for the period falling within one year prior to the filing of the petition as contemplated under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., and accordingly restricted the claim and granted arrears only for the period from 01.01.2019 to 28.12.2019. He contended that the maintenance order dated 29.07.2016 passed in M.C.No.4 of 2015 has attained finality and the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the said order. Therefore, the trial Court rightly directed the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance and there is no illegali