S THIPPASWAMI Vs. VANAJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 are wife and son of the petitioner. They filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before the Magistrate. The Magistrate granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- to the wife and Rs. 200/- to the son, payable from 3-10-1983. As the husband failed to pay any amount and as the total amount was Rs. 9,225/-, the wife and son filed Crl.M.P.No. 22/86. Notice was issued to the husband and later non-bailable warrant also was issued to the husband, but it was recalled. The husband filed a counter, admitting the amount but contended that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. the petition is barred by time and no warrant can be issued for the recovery of the amount. He also contended that he has no ready means to pay the arrears.

(2.) Before filing the petition, the wife and son filed Crl.M.P. No. 227/85 on 18-3-1985 for realisation of the maintenance and it was dismissed for default on 22-7-1985 for non-prosecution. Another Cri.M.P. 1093/85 was filed on 24-7-1985 and it was also dismissed for default on 8-11-1985. Subsequently the present petition has been filed on 13-11-1985 for realisation of the amount of Rs. 9,225/- towards arrears of maintenance from 3-10-1983. The Magistrate by his order dated 11-5-1986 in M.C.No. 6/84 directed the husband to pay the amount of Rs. 9,225/- within a month in two instalments. Against that. Crl. Revision Petition No. 34/86 was filed. The Sessions Judge, after considering Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. and the proviso found that in view of the three applications tiled carlier to the present petition and they were dismissed for default, the question of limitation does not arise and dismissed the same. It is against that, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The proviso to Sec. 125 (3) Cr.P.C. reads as under: