SEEMA Vs. KAMLESH KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'). The application was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate First Class. In revision before the Sessions Judge, Guna, the judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class was set aside and order of maintenance of Rs.300/ - per month was awarded to the petitioner vide order dated 19.7.94.

(2.) AFTER the order was passed, respondent filed a criminal revision challenging the order of grant of maintenance. That revision was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 183/94 before this Court. It came up for hearing for the first time on 19.8.94 and this Court directed the petitioner of that revision to deposit all the arrears at the rate of Rs.150/ - per month so that petitioner can appear before the Court on 21.9.94.The revision was finally dismissed vide order dated 24.2.95. After the revision was dismissed, the petitioner filed an application fur execution of the order of maintenance on 30.10.1995 claiming maintenance from 5.3.93 to 5.9.95 for a period of 31 months amounting to Rs. 9,300/ -

(3.) THE amount became due on the decision of the revision by the learned Sessions Judge on 19.7.94. There was no stay of the operation of the order passed by the revisional Court, therefore, the petitioner cannot get benefit of final adjudication by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 193/94, decided on 24.2.95. The petitioner was entitled for recovery from the date the amount became due. Since the amount became due in July, 1994, the period prior to July, 1994 could be claimed even a petition was filed within one year from the date of order passed on 19.7.94, but in the present case, the petition for recovery was filed on 31.10.1995. In these circumstances, the Courts below have not committed any error in refusing to issue warrant of recovery for the period prior to 31.10.95 The revision fails and is dismissed.