POKALA BRAHMANIAH Vs. POKALA PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents who are the wife and children of the petitioner, have filed two petitions for maintenance u/S.125 Cr. P.C. i.e. M.C. Nos. 7/84 and 4/85, in the Court of the II Additional Munaif Magistrate, Ongole, who by his order dated 24-2-1987, granted them maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month. Not satisfied with that, they preferred a revision to the Sessions Judge, who enhanced the maintenance to list 275/- per month by his order dt. 13-4-1988. Then they have filed Crl. M. P. No.785/89 in the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate for enforcing the arrears of maintenance of Rs. 7,525/- by sending the petitioner to jail. The learned Magistrate ordered that the petitioner should be sent to jail for a period of 24 months. Against that, a revision was filed in Crl. Revision Petition No. 123/88 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, which was dismissed. As against that, this petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the proviso to sub-s. (3) of S.125 Cr. P.C. which reads as follows : -

(3.) He contends that according to this proviso, no warrant shall be issued for recovery of any amount due under that Section, unless an application is made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. He further contends that the arrears of maintenance claimed in M.C.No. 7/84 are for a period of 24 months and in M.C.No.4/ 85, the arrears claimed are for a period of 27 months; and so, since the claim is for more than one year, the petition is not maintainable. He referred to a decision in J. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Rajeswari, (1989) 2 APLJ 41 : (1990 Cri LJ 2506) in which a learned single Judge of this Court held that the maintenance holder cannot accumulate the maintenance for a period beyond 12 months and that no application for execution of the maintenance order can be entertained for a period exceeding 12 months immediately preceding the date of application.