SAMBUNAYAGI Vs. S K MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of both sides, the matter has been taken up for final hearing. The petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Family Court, Salem to take on file the petition in C.M.P. Sr. No. 2044 of 2010 in M.C. No. 3 of 2004.

(2.) Petitioner is the wife who filed M.C. No. 3 /2004 against the Respondent husband claiming maintenance before the Family Court, Salem. The Family Court passed an order directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to Petitioners 2 and 3 by order dated 18.8.2005. Since the Respondent failed to pay, the Petitioner filed CMP 193 of 2005 and as the Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 96,000/- as arrears, the said petition was not pressed. The Respondent is liable to pay maintenance from 22.11.2005 to 22.11.2007. The Petitioner filed C.M.P. No. 50 of 2007 and it is pending. For the period 22.11.2008 to 22.11.2009 the Respondent has to pay a sum of Rs. 48,000/-. Therefore, for the said period of 12 months, the Petitioner filed a petition before the Court and the learned family Judge returned the petition stating that it is filed beyond limitation period prescribed under Section 125(3) Code of Criminal Procedure

(3.) The Petitioner re-submitted the petition citing a judgment of this Court (P. Vaithi v. Kanagavalli, 2010 1 LW(Cri) 574 ), wherein this Court has held that for a petition under Section 128 of Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no limitation. The family court again returned the petition stating that the judgment is applicable for an attachment for non payment of maintenance and not for the relief of distress warrant. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioners are before this Court.