T LAXMAMMA Vs. T RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the wife against the order of the Court below dismissing her petition tiled under Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the past maintenance for the period from 9-6-77 to 1-2-88.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are ; The wife filed a petition under Section 125 Cr,P.C., on 9-6-77 seeking grant of maintenance. After contest the petition was allowed on 9-12-88 granting the maintenance at Rs. 180/-per month from the date of application. That order has become final. In pursuance of this grant, the wife filed a petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., on 9-1-89 for execution of the maintenance order. The court below holding that the wife is entitled to the maintenance from 1-2-88 to 31-1-89 (i.e., for twelve months) dismissed the said petition under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., so far it relates to the period prior to 1-2-88, Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. Mahesh Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, sub-mitted that by a reading of first proviso Sec. 125 (3) Cr. PC., 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 9-12-88, when the court granted maintenance on the application made therefor, and therefore the execution filed on 9-1-89 is well within the contemplated period of one year. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the order dismissing the execution petition for the period in question is bad in law and merits to be set aside by ordering it for the full period.