SIVADASAN Vs. SINDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 277 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner who has finally suffered an order at the hands of the Family Court and this Court to pay maintenance to the respondent, his wife, is Ext.P4 order passed by the Family Court, turning down his plea that Execution Petition No. 996/2010 in which Ext.P4 is passed by the Family Court is barred by limitation. The respondent remains absent notwithstanding the service of notice by this Court. Mr. K. Rakesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

(2.) The argument was that the claim in the execution petition which is for recovery for the maintenance due for a period of 65 months from 24.2.2005 totalling an amount of Rs. 48,750/- is barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel, the claim is per se barred by limitation and hence, the E.P. should have been rejected as barred by limitation.