Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jagsir Singh v. Amarjit Kaur - CRM-21176-M-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 10432 (13 November 2006)


Criminal Misc.No.21176-M of 2005

Date of Decision: November 16, 2006

Jagsir Singh



Amarjit Kaur


PRESENT: Mr.D.K.Kaushal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.I.S.Brar, Advocate,

for the respondent.


The petitioner, who has been directed to pay a maintenance of Rs.300/- per month from the date of application, i.e., 13.6.1997, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of this order as well as the order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissing his revision petition against the order granting maintenance.

It is submitted that the orders are illegal and unlawful being against the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. as the claim raised by the respondent-wife was barred by time. Case set up is that under the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., no warrant is to be issued for recovery of any amount due under this section unless the application is made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. It is further stated that in this case application was filed on 13.8.2001 on the basis of an order dated 23.12.1997 claiming maintenance for Criminal Misc.No.21176-M of 2005 { 2 }

the period from 13.6.1997 to 13.8.2001. It is the case of the petitioner that claim only for a period of one year could have been made in terms of the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. This factual position, however, is belied from the impugned order in this case. It has been noticed that the respondent, Amarjit Kaur, had filed petition for maintenance on 13.6.1997 when she was granted interim maintenance from the date of application. The execution application for claiming interim maintenance for the period from 1.9.1997 to 31.12.1997 was filed on 6.1.1998. During the pendency of this application, final maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.300/- per month and accordingly she preferred another application claiming arrears of maintenance w.e.f.1.8.1997 to 31.12.1997 and then w.e.f.1.1.1998 to 31.3.1998. This application was, however, dismissed on 22.12.2000, though it had been filed in time. The same was taken in revision, which was dismissed on 1.8.2000. In the meantime, the present petitioner was taken in custody being involved in a murder case from which he was acquitted on 31.10.2001. It is in this background that successive application for claiming maintenance from 13.6.1997 to 13.8.2001 was moved when a conditional warrant was issued and payment of Rs.5000/- was made. The petitioner also agreed to pay the balance in two instalments spanning over a period of six months each. It is in this background that the recovery of maintenance was contested solely on the ground of limitation.

The facts, as noticed in this case, would reveal that the grounds of limitation as provided under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. are not really attracted in this case. The counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to a judgment in the case of Shantha @ Ushadevi v. B.G.Shivananjappa, 2005(4) SCC 468 to urge that where the application for recovery of Criminal Misc.No.21176-M of 2005 { 3 }

maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was pending for five years, the fresh application for recovery need not be filed and arrears in such case would not become time barred. In this case only it was held that liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had noticed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter and further that it would be unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) as such was not complied. In this case also, it is seen that the application was filed within one year and subsequent application was filed due to peculiar facts and circumstances in this case as the petitioner was involved in a murder case. In the subsequent application filed, arrears due upto the date of filing were calculated and recovery thereof sought. It cannot be said that the earlier application filed within the period of limitation had not survived. Moreover, in this case, the petitioner had voluntarily agreed to pay the amount including the balance in two instalments spanning over a period of six months. He cannot now be heard to complain that this recovery cannot be effected from him due to bar of limitation as laid down in Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. There is, thus, no merit in the present petition.


October 17, 2006 ( RANJIT SINGH )

ramesh JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.