NANHI BAI Vs. NETRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned single Judge Shri Justice S. K. Dubey (as he then was) has referred the instant revision to larger Bench, in order to decide the question whether the application filed for recovery of the amount of previous one year under section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can continue for recovery of the future amount also and whether it is necessary to file separate application/applications for the amount falling due in future during the pendency of the said proceedings. As learned Single Judge has referred the entire revision, we are deciding the same after hearing the parties on merits.

(2.) Learned single Judge found conflict in the judicial pronouncements of this Court in the case of Loonchand v. Hemkanta (Criminal Revision No. 334 of 1985) decided on 5-3-1986 (1986) 1 MPWN (SN) 144 decided by Shri Justice K. I. Shrivastava, learned single Judge and in the case of Vimal Kumar v. Smt. Siya Bai (Criminal Revision No. 92/91 (J) decided on 28-4-93 by Shri Justice D. K. Jain (as he then was) (1993) 2 MPWN 141. Though the learned single Judge has expressed his agreement with the view taken in the case of Loonchand v. Hemkanta (supra), however, referred the matter to the larger Bench in view of the contrary view taken in the case Vimal Kumar v. Smt. Siya Bai (supra). The learned Single Judge referred the matter to the larger Bench, considering it to be of general importance and day to day recurrence. That is how the matter has travelled to us for resolving the controversy.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case lies in a narrow compass. The petitioners Nanhi Bai and her 2 minor children applied under section 125 Cr. P. C. and an order was passed on 14-3-91 granting maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month to the wife (petitioner No. 1) and Rs. 100/- each to the two minor children (Petitioners No. 2 and 3), total Rs. 400/- per month, by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 23/89, against respondent, which order attained finality.