RAMCHANDRA ABA RAUT Vs. SUMAN RAMCHANDRA RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts leading to the present criminal writ petitin are as follows : On 18th May, 1982, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madha has passed an order of maintenance against the petitioner (husband) under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In a revision application filed by the first respondent (wife) in the Court of Sessions Judge at Solapur for enhancement of amount of maintenance, the dispute was amicably settled between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 by purshis dated 30th October, 1982. On 7th January, 1984, the first respondent (wife) filed an application in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madha for the execution of the maintenance order dated 18th May, 1982 against the petitioner. On the same day, namely, on 7th January, 1984, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Madha issued a recovery warrant against the petitioner. The said recovery warrant was served on the petitioner on 19th March, 1984. The petitioner with a view to file criminal revision application before Sessions Judge at Solapur made an application for certified copy on 7th April, 1984, which was received by the petitioner on 9th April, 1984 and on 11th April, 1984, the petitioner filed the revision application on the Court of the Sessions Judge, at Solapur.

(2.) The learned II Additional Sessions Judge at Solapur has accepted the submission of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate was in error in issuing the recovery warrant against the petitioner on 7th January, 1984 and is in clear violation of the provision of section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The revision application, however, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge at Solapur on the ground that the said revision application was filed beyond 90 days. There was delay of four days in filing the revision application.

(3.) Mr. Ajit P. Shah, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged before me that although the recovery warrant was issued against the petitioner on 7th January, 1984, the said warrant was issued without notice to the petitioner and that the said recovery warrant was served on the petitioner on 19th March, 1984, on which day the petitioner for the first time had knowledge of such order, namely, of recovery warrant having been issued against the petitioner. It is submitted by Mr. Shah that the period of limitation of 90 days would start from the day on which the petitioner had knowledge of the recovery warrant, namely, on the day on which it was served i.e. on 19th March, 1984. If the period of 90 days is computed from 19th March, 1984, then the revision application filed by the petitioner in the Court of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur on 11th April, 1984 is clearly within the limitation. In support of his submission that the limitation would start from the date of the knowledge, reliance is placed by Mr. Shah on the case of (Zohra Begum alias Aysha Begum v. Mohamed Ghouse Qadri Qadeeri and another) reported in A.I.R. 1966 Andhra Pradesh 50. In the case of Zohra Begum alias Aysha Begum the Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering the starting point of limitation for the purpose of setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance. It was held that the limitation for setting aside begins from the date of the knowledge of the order to the aggrieved party and not from the date of the passing of the order. Andhra Pradesh High Court has followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Harish Chandra v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer) reported in A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 1500, wherein it is held :