SANIL KUMAR P.P. Vs. SAGAR SANGEETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case projected in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is as follows:- The petitioner is the counter petitioner and respondents herein are petitioners 2 and 3 in M.C.No.156/2010 before the Family Court, Kannur. As per Annexure-1 order, the petitioner herein was directed to pay maintenance to the respondents herein @ Rs.2500/- per month w.e.f.13.04.2010. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner has effected payments also. However, the respondents herein now filed Annexure-II petition in September, 2018 seeking arrears of maintenance. Both the petitioners have attained majority and their date of birth being 31.08.1996 and 11.06.1998 respectively. Arrears of maintenance now claimed is for the period from 13.04.2010 to 30.08.2015 for the 1 st respondent herein and arrears of maintenance is claimed for the 2 nd respondent herein for the period from 13.04.2010 to 10.06.2017. Pursuant to Annexure-II petition, the Court below has issued Annexure-III summons to the petitioner. The petitioner filed counter Annexure-IV counter stating that the claim is time barred and the petition itself is not maintainable. The Court below, however, was not pleased to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner and issued distress warrant and consequently the requisition authority issued Annexure V & VI notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act to the petitioner. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Case with the following prayer:

(2.) The 1st Proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. mandates that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under the said section unless the application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. The petitioner would contend that the impugned proceedings and the consequential distress warrant proceedings have been issued by the Family Court by clearly overlooking the mandate of the 1st proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C and the amounts claimed by the other side are barred by the above said limitation stipulated in the 1 st proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C . On a reading of the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the Family Court has not addressed to the said vital issue, though the petitioner has raised the said point as can be seen from Annexure-IV counter objections filed by him. Accordingly, the matter in relation to C.M.P.No.415/2018 in M.C.No.156/2010 will stand remitted to the Family Court, Kannur for consideration afresh. The Family Court will consider the above said objections raised by the petitioner more particularly in Annexure-IV and also the impact of the 1 st proviso to Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C to the facts of this case and should ascertain whether the amounts claimed are barred by the limitation imposed in the 1st proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The Family Court will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides, then will pass a considered order in that regard without much delay preferably within a period of 4 to 6 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Until orders are passed by the Family Court as directed above, all coercive steps for recovery of the impugned demand shall be kept in abeyance. In case the Family Court finds that the impugned demand is hit by the above said limitation imposed in the 1 st proviso to Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., then the Family Court should also pass consequential orders recalling the impugned distress warrant proceedings. The Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Kannur, who is dealing with M.C.No.156/2010 for necessary information and further action at the cost of the petitioner.