AMARENDRA KUMAR PAUL versus MAYA PAUL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 380 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 380 
A 
AMARENDRA KUMAR PAUL 
., . 
v. 
MAYA PAUL & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1413 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
.. 
c 
s.125 - Maintenance - Under s.125, son is entitled to 
grant of maintenance till he has not attained majority and 
daughter is entitled till she is not married. 
s. 125 - Execution application - Period of limitation - On 
D 
facts, order of stay granted by revisional court and by High 
Court in the s. 125 proceedings -
Limitation for filing 
application for execution would be computed upon excluding 
~ 
the period during which the order of stay was operating -
Limitation. 
E 
In 1984, a maintenance application was filed against 
appellant-husband uls.125 Cr.P.C. by respondent-wife for 
herself and for her minor son and daughters. Magistrate 
ordered payment of maintenance @ Rs.500 p.m. in favour 
.... 
of wife and @ Rs.125 p.m. for the three minor children. 
F 
On 13.7.1994, the magistrate allowed application for 
enhancement of maintenance in respect of minor 
children @ Rs.450 p.m. from February, 1993. Revisional 
court and High Court upheld the order of magistrate. 
G 
In 1998, respondents filed an application for 
execution of order dated 13. 7 .1994 before the magistrate 
.. 
praying for maintenance for the period May 1997 to April, 
1998. The application was dismissed on 9.6.1999 opining 
that all the children had attained majority. However 
H 
380 
AMARENDRA KUMAR PAUL v. MAYA PAUL & ORS. 381 
..>·. 
despite this, wife filed another execution case claiming 
A 
;;. 
maintenance for the period February 1993 to May 2004. 
The Magistrate opined that respondent-son became major 
on 11.5.1997. Respondent-daughter got married on 
11.5.2003 and the other daughter was still unmarried. It 
was directed that the son was entitled to maintenance till 
B 
he attained majority and daughters were entitled till 
marriage. However maintenance applicatior for the 
period May, 1997 to April, 1998 was dismissed as the 
.~ 
same was rejected earlier by the Court. Revision 
thereagainst was dismissed. 
c 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the 
execution application for the purpose of executing the 
order granting maintenance for the minor children was 
not maintainable as they had attained majority; and that 
D 
'; the period of limitation prescribed for filing an execution 
application for executing an order under Section 125 
CrPC being one year, the impugned judgment was not 
maintainable. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. The Magistrate in his judgment dated 
.,; 9.6.1999 categorically arrived at a finding of fact that in 
the year 1997, all the three children of the first respondent 
had attained majority. Her daughter was 8 years of age 
F 
on 31.8.1984. She, thus, attained majority on or about 
31.8.1994 whereas the other daughter and son who were 
twins, being aged 5 years on the said date, became major 
in 1997. An application for grant of maintenance, 
therefore, was maintainable, so far as the children were 
G 
~ concerned, till they had not attained majority. As a cause 
of action for grant of maintenance would arise only in the 
event a person having sufficient means, neglects or 
refuses to maintain his legitimate or illegitimate minor 
child unable to maintain itself. Once, therefore, the 
H 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A children attained majority, the said provision would cease •• 
to apply to their cases. [Paras 9 and 11] [387-B-C; 388-H; 
389-A-B] 
2. A period of limitation is provided for in terms of 
8 Section 125 CrPC. However, in a case of this nature, 
Section 15 of the Limitation Act would apply. In fact, the 
order of stay was granted by the revisional court as also 
by the High Court in these proceedings. The limitation for 
filing application for execution would be computed upon 
"' 
excluding the period during which the order of stay was 
C operating. It is clear from the order of the Magistrate that 
no order of maintenance was passed in favour of the 
children after they attained majority. In that view of the 
matter, the question of recovery of any amount from the 
petitioners towards the maintenance granted to the 
D children after they had attained majority does not arise. 
In this case the direction was issued to recover the 
amount of maintenance only for the period prior to the 
sons' attaining majority and the daughters getting 
married and hen

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.