DHAREPPA Vs. RENUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7-4-2003 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No. 182 of 2002 by the court of II Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, by which, that petition has been dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present matter are: The respondent, who is admittedly the wife of the petitioner, had filed maintenance petition under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance from the petitioner and that petition was allowed on 30-10-1999 awarding maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month from the date of petition. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision petition No. 297 of 1999 before the Court of Sessions at Bijapur, which was dismissed on 22-10-2001. Within five days thereafter, on 27-10-2001, the respondent-wife filed Cri. Misc. No. 84 of 2001 for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period from 5-7-1996 to 27-10-2001 (i. e. , from the date of filing petition under Section 125 of the cr. P. C. to the date of filing recovery petition ). In that proceeding, warrant came to be issued against the petitioner. Challenging that, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions in Criminal Revision petition No. 182 of 2002, which upheld the warrant ordered by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the petition with cost, as noted already. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) HEARD the learned Counsels for the parties. It was vehemently argued for the petitioner-husband that in view of the proviso to Section 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C. , the arrears of maintenance cannot be recovered for the period beyond one year i. e. , the amount of arrears accrued for more than one year upto the date of filing recovery petition cannot be recovered. On the other hand, it was submitted for the respondent-wife that as the revision petition filed against the order of maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate was pending till 22-10-2001, the period of one year requires to be computed from that date and not from 30-10-1999 - the date on which the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. was allowed awarding maintenance. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the decision in Jagannath Patra v. Purnamashi Saraf and Another, AIR 1968 Ori. 35 : 1968 Cri. L. J. 335 (Ori.)