POONGODI & ANR. versus THANGAVEL

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 27-09-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
. [2013] 9 S.C.R. 862 
POONGODI & ANR. 
v. 
THANGAVEL 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1542 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2013 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 
s. 125(3), first proviso - Order of High Court curtailing the 
entitlement of appellants to maintenance to a period of one 
year prior to the date of filing of application - Held: The 
application of appellants was in continuation of their earlier 
D application - The provision does not create a bar nor does it 
in any way affect the entitlement of a claimant to arrears of 
maintenance - Order of High Court set aside - Respondent 
directed to pay the entire arrears of maintenance due to 
appellants and to continue to pay monthly maintenance. 
E 
s. 125(3), first proviso - Explained. 
In an application filed uls. 125(3) CrPC by the 
appellants, namely, the wife and the son of the 
respondent, for a directions to the respondent to pay 
F maintenance for the period 04.02.1993 to 05.02.2002, the 
High Court held that as the petition was filed on 
05.02.2002, under the first proviso to s. 125(3)_ CrPC, the 
appellants were entitled to claim arrears for the period of 
one year preceding the date of filing of the application i.e. 
G from 04.02.2001 to 05.02.2002. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The first proviso to s. 125(3) CrPC does 
not create a bar nor does in any way affect the entitlement 
862 
POONGODI & ANR. v. THANGAVEL 
863 
of a claimant to arrears of maintenance. What the proviso A 
contemplates is that the procedure for recovery of 
maintenance u/s. 125(3) CrPC, namely, a levy of a fine and 
the detention of the defaulter in custody, would not be 
available to a claimant who had slept over his/her rights 
and has not approached the court within a period of one 
B 
year commencing from the date on which the entitlement 
to receive maintenance has accrued. However, in such 
a situation the ordinary remedy to recover the amount of 
maintenance, namely, a civil action would still be 
available. [Para 4] 
c 
1.2 The application dated 05.02.2002 filed by the 
appellants u/s. 125(3) was in continuation of the earlier 
applications and for subsequent periods of default on the 
part of the respondent. The first proviso to s. 125(3), 
therefore, did not extinguish or limit the entitlement of the D 
appellants to the maintenance granted by the trial court 
[Para 7] 
1.3 The order of the High Court is set aside and the 
respondent is directed to pay the entire arrears of E 
maintenance due to the appellants commencing from the 
date of filing of the maintenance petition i.e. 4.2.1993 and 
continue to pay the monthly maintenance as directed in 
the judgment. If the order is not complied with by the 
respondent, the trial court is directed to issue a warrant 
F 
for the arrest of the respondent and ensure that the same 
is executed and the respondent taken into custody to 
suffer imprisonment as provided by s. 125(3) CrPC. [Para 
8] 
Ku/dip Kaur v. Surinder Singh and Anr. 1988 (3) G 
Suppl. SCR 762 = (1989) 1 SCC 405; Shantha alias 
Ushadevi anti Another v. B. G. Shivananjappa 2005 (1) 
Suppl. SCR 153 = (2005) 4 sec 468 - relied on. 
863 
H 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Shahada Khatoon & Ors. v. Amjad Ali & Ors. (1999) 5 
sec 672 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 762 
relied on 
para 5 
B 
2005 (1) Suppl. SCR 153 
relied on 
para 6 
(1999) 5 sec 672 
referred to 
para 6 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
c No. 1542 of 2013. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2004 of the 
High Court of Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 620 of 2003. 
Movita, R. Nedumaran for the Appellants. 
V. Kanagaraj, Promila, S. Thananjayan for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
2. The appellants are the wife and son of one Thangavel. 
By an order dated 12.01.1998 passed by the learned trial court 
each of the appellants have been granted maintenance @ 
F 
Rs. 300/- per month w.e.f. 04.02.1993 i.e. date of filing of the 
application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure (CrPC). As the respondent-husband had not 
complied with the order of payment, in a miscellaneous petition, 
i.e., C.M.P. No. 566/1998 filed by the appellant, the trial court 
by its order dated 21.07.1998 had sentenced the respondent 
G to imprisonment. The default in payment of maintenance was 
for the period 4.2.1993
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.