1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes May be allowed to see the judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked : Yes to Law Reporters/Journals:

3. Whether His Lordships wishes to see the fair copy: Yes Of the Judgment?

GIST:

HEAD NOTE:

Cases referred

1. 2025 AHC 115579

2. 2024:BHC-AS:8917

3. (2016) 11 SCC 774

4. (2021) 2 SCC 324

5. (1989) 1 SCC 405

6. (2005) 4 SCC 468

7. (2013) 10 SCC 618

8. (1976) 1 SCC 128

9. 2021 SCC OnLine All 640

ORDER:

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”), seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crl.M.P. No. 930 of 2023 in DVC No.13 of 2012 pending on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar. Petitioners herein are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 7 in the Domestic Violence Case and in this criminal petition no relief sought against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7/respondent Nos.2 to 7.

2. Heard Mr. M. Ratan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State and Ms.O.Anitha, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3.1 Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that petitioner No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2 and is presently under suspension from the Police Department, has filed the present petition questioning the order directing attachment of his salary. Respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “DV Act”) by filing D.V.C. No.13 of 2012 before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hayathnagar. By order dated 25.04.2016, the learned Magistrate directed petitioner No.1 to provide accommodation or to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards rent for respondent No.2 and her daughters and Rs.5,000/- per month each to their two children. The learned Magistrate also awarded compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners preferred an appeal vide Crl.A. No.544 of 2016. The appellate Court by order dated 23.04.2018 reduced the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, while confirming the rest of the order/directions passed by the lower Court.

3.2. Alleging non-compliance with the aforesaid orders and contending that maintenance arrears had accumulated to Rs.8,55,000/, respondent No.2 filed Crl.M.P. No.930 of 2023 seeking attachment of the salary of petitioner No.1 for realization of the said arrears. By order dated 04.06.2024, the learned Magistrate allowed the said petition and directed attachment of the salary of petitioner No.1. Questioning the legality and correctness of the said order, petitioner No.1 has filed the present petition seeking its quashing.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order directing attachment of the salary of petitioner No.1 is unsustainable in law and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is contended that, in view of the proviso to Section 125(3) of CrPC, recovery of maintenance arrears beyond the statutory period prescribed therein is impermissible. According to the learned counsel, the application filed by respondent No.2 seeking recovery of such arrears was, therefore, barred by limitation, and the learned Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same or to direct attachment of the salary of petitioner No.1 in pursuance thereof.

4.2. It is further contended that, upon expiry of the limitation period contemplated under proviso of Section 125(3) of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate became functus officio insofar as enforcement of such arrears was concerned and, consequently, could not have initiated coercive recovery proceedings in respect of amounts allegedly due beyond the prescribed period. Learned counsel also submits that respondent No.2 is employed as a Head Constable and is drawing a monthly salary of approximately Rs.1,0