TAKKALAPALLY LAXMAMMA Vs. TAKKALAPALLY RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the wife against the order of the Court below dismissing her petition filed under S. 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the past maintenance for the period from 9-6-77 to 1-2-1988.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are : The wife filed a petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C. on 9-6-1977 seeking grant of maintenance. After contest the petition was allowed on 9-12-1968 granting the maintenance at Rs. 180.00 per month from the date of application. That order has become final. In pursuance of this grant, the wife filed a petition under S. 125(3), Cr.P.C., on 9-1-1989 for execution of the maintenance order. The Court below holding that the wife is entitled to the maintenance from 1-2-1988 to 31-1-1989 (i.e., for twelve months) dismissed the said petition under S. 12(3), Cr.P.C. so far it relates to the period prior to 1-2-1988. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that by a reading of first proviso S. 125(3), Cr.P.C. it is clear that the petition for execution of the maintenance order has to be filed within one year from the date on which the amount became due. In this instant case, the learned counsel submitted the amount became due only on 9-12-1988, when the Court granted maintenance on the application made therefore, and therefore the execution filed on 9-1-1989 is well within the contemplated period of one year. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the order dismissing execution petition for the period in question is bad in law and merits to be set aside by ordering it for the full period.