CHANDBI Vs. MOHD HANIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned is passed in revision by the XIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Indore, setting aside the order of the Magistrate directing recovery of the amount of maintenance which has accrued due subsequent to the filing of the application under Section 125 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned A. S. J. has held that for the recovery of any amount that may fall due during the pendency of an application under Section 125 (3), the proviso to Sub-section (3) providing for limitation shall be attracted and if such an application is not made within one year from the date on which the amount has fallen due, the application shall be barred by limitation.

(2.) THE point projected in this revision stands concluded by decision of this Court in Loonchand v. Hemkanta, 1986 (I) MPWN 144, wherein it is held :

(3.) THE learned A. S. J. was, therefore, clearly wrong in restricting the recovery of the amount falling due during the pendency of application under Section 125 (3) for a period of 12 months only. If the original application was within limitation then any amount which has fallen due during the pendency of that application could be recovered in the same proceedings.