AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Garg, J.
Against two separate orders passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 63/2000 and M.J.C. No. 56/2001 the applicant/husband has filed this revision petition. From the order passed by the two Courts it appears that the wife filed a Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 104/98 u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming the maintenance from the husband. The said petition was finally allowed on 6.3.2000 and the trial Court was pleased to direct that the husband shall pay a sum of Rs. 500/- towards monthly allowance w.e.f. 18.3.1998. The amount which fell due for the period between 18.3.1998 and 6.3.2000 (the date of the order passed by the trial Court) obviously could not be claimed by the wife as there was no final order in favour of the wife and in absence of the order of the Court it cannot be said that the amount fell due, The wife filed an application for recovery on 2.5.2000. During the pendency of that application the wife filed yet another application u/s 125(3) for recovery of the amount falling due for the period 18.4.2000 to 18.4.2001. This application according to the learned Counsel for the applicant was filed on 19.5.2001. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court rejected the application observing that in accordance with the Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applications filed by the wife for recovery of the amount were within limitation. Being aggrieved by the said separate orders the applicant/husband has come to this Court.
Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that as the applications were not filed within one year of the amount falling due both the applications ought to have been rejected by the trial Court.
Section 125(3) Code of Criminal Procedure provides the procedure for recovery of the maintenance amount. The First proviso to Section 125(3) says as under:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due.
From the perusal of the first proviso of Section 125(3) Code of Criminal Procedure it would clearly appear that an application for recovery has to be made within one year of the amount falling due. Wife''s petition was finally allowed on 6.3.2000 therefore the amount fell due on 6.3.2000 only, by no stretch of imagination or jugglery of the word or Court craft relating to the interpretation it can be said that the amount fell due on 18.3.1998 when the wife filed the application. Up to 6.3.2000 nobody knew that what would be the fate of the wife''s application and what particular amount would be allowed in her favour. It is the final verdict, judgment or dictum of the Court which declares the right of the party. On 6.3.2000, the Court declared in favour of the wife that she is entitled for Rs. 500/- towards monthly amount and required the husband on the same day to pay the monthly amount to the wife. Under these circumstances the amount fell due on 6.3.2000 and not before that. The wife''s application for recovery was filed on 2.5.2000, it was certainly within one years of the date when the amount fell due.
So far as the objection of the applicant relating to the second application is concerned it is to be seen that the wife was claiming the amount for the period between 18.4.2000 and 18.4.2001. The monthly amount to be paid to the wife or dependent fell due on the last date of the month and not on the first date of the month. The amount for the period between 18.4.2000 to 18.5.2000 fell due on the last date of the month, therefore the cause of action accrued on 19.5.2000, any application for recovery of the said amount could certainly be filed on 19.5.2001. In the present case the wife filed the application on 19.5.2001 claiming the monthly allowance for the period between 18.4.2000 and 18.4.2001, the said application could not be said to be barred by limitation or contrary to the first proviso appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The Court below was certainly justified in rejecting both the applications of the applicant. I find no reason to interfere. The petition is rejected.