VIMLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred by the learned Single Judge in view of the contrary decisions of this court. "whether first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr. P. C. is not mandatory in nature and this court is empowered to issue warrant for recovery of un-paid amount of arrears of maintenance even though it is beyond one year from the date on which it became due".

(2.) IN the case of Purshottam Das Vanjani V. Aasha Rani (1), it was held that- "the maintenance amount is always granted when the relations between wife and husband become strained and when they live separately or when the divorce is effected. The lady who always remains at the mercy of the husband and who is turned out, she has no source of income to maintain her, and even to approach the court regularly. The husband who is always at the better position and who can exert influence, wants to harass the lady. It does not matter whether the non-petitioner requiests the court in time or after the period of limitation. A moral duty is enjoined on the husband, and without taking shelter of the technicalities of the law and the provisions of Sections 125 (3) Cr. P. C. he should have paid this amount".

(3.) IN these circumstances, the reference is answered as under- "the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr. P. C. is mandatory in nature and this court is not empowered to issue warrant for recovery of unpaid amount of arrears of maintenance if it is beyond one year from the date on which it became due". .