P VAITHI Vs. KANAGAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In M.C. No. 29/2004, the Family Court, Salem, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- p.m. to the 1st Respondent and Rs. 500/- p.m. to the 2nd Respondent towards their maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The said order, dated 17.11.2006 has become final. However, the said amount was not paid. Seeking to enforce the same, the Respondents filed C.M.P. No. 146/2008 before the lower court under Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure By an order dated 22.10.2009, the Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay the amount and also cautioned the Petitioner that an order of attachment would be passed in the event of failure of the Petitioner to pay the amount. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. Thus, he is before this Court with this revision.

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that such a petition for enforcement could be filed only in respect of arrears of maintenance for a period of one year. He would further submit that since, in this case, C.M.P. No. 146/2008 was filed covering a period exceeding one year, the court ought to have dismissed the application as barred by limitation. To substantiate his contention, the learned Counsel relies on judgments in Yoosuf Rawther v. Ashref and Anr., 1997 CrLJ 4313 and Jagannath Patra v. Purnamashi Saraf and Anr., 1968 AIR(Ori) 35

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Respondents would however oppose this petition. According to him, the limitation provided under Section 125(3) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.