SURYA NARAIN Vs. MOHINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision petition filed by Surya Narain, petitioner husband is directed against the order dated 16/12/1998 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has ordered the petitioner husband to make payment of maintenance to respondent wife from May, 1997 to May, 1998. In this matter, notice was issued to the non-petition wife and Shri Resham Bhargava, advocate put in appearance on her behalf. Record from the court below was called for. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties are heard and the entire record is examined.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner husband that the non-petitioner wife Mohini Devi delivered a child on 12th March, 1997, and, therefore, it is clear that the non-petitioner Mohini Devi lived with the petitioner husband. It is also argued that the petitioner husband is a poor person. The non- petitioner wife herself is guilty and she is harassing the petitioner. She is not even caring her child. It is then urged that the impugned order is passed on the basis of the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. which was filed on 2nd June, 1998 and she could not claim maintenance for more than one year from that date. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court for making payment of maintenance from May, 1997, is illegal and it should be set aside the order under challenge in the revision petition then the petitioner should give liberty to file an application before the learned court below for modification/cancellation of the original order of maintenance passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) BEFORE the dealing with the arguments of the parties, it is necessary to consider the relevant provision of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. which empowers the court to order recovery of maintenance within one year from the date of with it become due, which runs as under :-