SUBIR PAL CHOUDHURY Vs. MAYA PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. Das, learned Amicus Curiaeengaged by this Court for presenting the case of the respondent asthe respondent has not ensured her representation in this Court.

(2.) THE solitary question that has been raised in thispetition to challenge the orders dated 06.04.2006, 23.09.2006 and17.04.2007 delivered in Misc. Case No.125 of 2005 by the Judge,Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura is that whether any order ofmaintenance can be enforced under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. in exclusion of the limitation as prescribed under Sub -Section 3 of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:

(3.) MR . Das, learned Amicus Curiae while placing the case of the respondent, the opposite party in Misc. Case No.125 of 2005 pending in the Court of the Judge, Family Court has submitted that Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. does exonerate the person, otherwise liable to pay the arrear or the maintenance from the liability of payment if the arrear falls due for period more than one year preceding the day of institution of the enforcement petition. Its purpose is limited. However, Mr. Das, learned Amicus Curiae has candidly submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C., the enforcement by way of issuing warrant for levying the amount due it should be restricted to the arrear for the preceding one year. It has been found from the records that the said petition under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. for levying the amount due in view of the order of maintenance dated 06.04.2002 delivered in Misc. Case No.101 of 2001 has been filed on 26.04.2005. As such, the arrear maintenance for the period from 27.04.2004 to 26.04.2005 can only be levied by way of issuing warrant of arrest.