BHIKHU LAL GIRI Vs. UMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 18.7.2001 made by Sri A.K. Dutta Principal Judge, Family Court, Hazaribagh in T.R. No. 301 of 2001 whereby and whereunder he directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 61,200/ - (Rupees Sixty -one thousand two hundred) towards arrears of maintenance falling due since June 1984 to June 2001 @ Rs. 300 per month and directed to the General Manager, CCL Tarmu Collierty to deduct Rs. 61,200/ - from the savings of the petitioner and deposit the same in the Court through Cheque in favour of Opposite party No. 1 Smt. Uma Devi.

(2.) THE aforesaid order arose out of the fact that the respondent Uma Devi had preferred an application under Section 125 of the Cr PC bearing T.R. No. 1038 of 1985 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and the Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the pleading and evidence by way of depositions on record rejected her application. There after Smt. Uma Devi preferred a Criminal Revision bearing No. 131 of 1985 and in that revision she was granted a maintenance for herself and her two minor children @ Rs. 300/ - per month from the date of presentation of the application by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. Thereafter it appears that this order of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh was challenged before the High Court but ultimately it was dismissed as not pressed. It appears that petitioner did not reagitate the matter. Thereafter the wife filed a petition under Section 128 of the Cr PC before the CJM for enforcing that order and that was registered as case No. M -15 of 1998 and then a show cause notice (Annexure -1 and 1/1) was issued against the husband. This notice was challenged under Section 482 of the Cr PC by the husband in the High Court on the ground that the claim of arrear of maintenance by the wife was barred by time which was dismissed by the High Court with a permission to be withdrawn and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

(3.) IN the case in hand the order for maintenance was w.e.f. the date of filing of petition under Section 125, Cr PC i.e., from the year 1985. The application for enforcing the order in fact was filed in the year 1998. Though the husband had challenged the order granting maintenance in the High Court, but there was no stay order. So the wife could have filed execution petition earlier which she did not do. Thus on the date of filing of the execution petition on 28.1.1998 the only recoverable arrear as per the provision (supra) was for a period i.e., 12 months arrears due accrued on the date of filing the application. Due from 1985 (date from which maintenance was granted) to 27.1.1997 cannot be recovered due to limitation and the aforesaid provision. I rely for such filing on 1990, Cr LJ 2506 and 1998 Cr LJ 2714.