SUKHDEO SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS similar question of law is involved regarding interpretation of section 125 clause (3) Cr. P. C. in both these petitions, hence they are disposed of by this common order.

(2.) MST. Chhoti non-petitioner moved an application u/s 125 Cr. P. C. for granting her maintenance against petitioner Sukdeo Singh. The trial court granted Rs. 175/- per month as maintenance allowance to MST. Chhoti. The petitioner did not make the payment of the maintenance allowance from 17-4-82 to 17-3-84 and for recovery of that amount MST. Chhoti moved an application before the lower court. Then another application was moved by MST. Chhoti alleging that the maintenance allowance from the period 17-3-1984 to 1-3-1986 has not been paid to her by Sukhdeo Singh and prayed that this amount be recovered from him and paid to her. Thus there were two applications regarding arrears of maintenance allowance due towards petitioner Sukhdeo Singh. In both these applications Sukhdeo Singh raised an objection that they are barred by limitation, hence no amount can be recovered from him. That request was not accepted by the trial court and the application of Sukhdeo Singh was rejected. Against that order these two petitions under section 482 Cr. P. C. have been preferred.

(3.) I have gone through the case laws cited by Mr. Garg. With due respect to the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Orissa and Allahabad, I do not agree with their conclusions. As I have already decided in the case of Purushotam (supra) that the proviso to section 125 clause (3) Cr. P. C. is a mere technicality and this should not be a bar for the recovery of the maintenance allowance by a poor lady.