SHANTHA @ USHADEVI AND ANR. versus B.G. SHIVANANJAPPA

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 153 · Decided: 06-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-( 
SHANTHA @ USHADEVI AND ANR. 
v. 
B.G. SHIVANANJAPPA 
MAY 6, 2005 
[P, VENKATARAMA REDDI AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
Sections 125(3), 'first proviso' and 125(1)-Arrears of Maintenance-
Claimfor-Limitation-Trial court orflered maintenance to wife and daughter C 
under S.125(1)-Petition filed by wife for recovery of maintenance but no 
payment made by husband-Instead, he filed revision in Sessions Court and 
then in High Court which were dismissed-Thereafter wife filed IA in the 
pending petition claiming, maintenance for the entire period-Challenge to, 
, on gro_und of being time ba~red under proviso to S. 12 5(3) Cr('C-Held: IA D 
~ cannot be dismissed as time-barred as the petition ·claiming arrears of 
maintenance was filed within one year from the date the amount became due 
and was pending a/through. 
Section 12 5--Social legislation-To be construed liberally for the welfare 
and benefit of wife and children.' 
E 
Appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC against 
respondent-husballd claiming maintenance for herself and her minor 
daughter. On 20.1.1993, trial court awarded maintenance of Rs. 500 to 
the appellant and Rs. 300 to daughter. Appellant filed Cr!. Misc. Petition 
No. 47/1993 to recover the arrears of maintenance for the period 20.1.1993 F 
to 31.8.1993. Respondent preferred revision in Sessions Court and then 
in High Court. During the pendency of these revisions, the respondent did 
not pay any amount nor the Magistrate issued the warrant in terms of 
Section 125(3). Sessions Court and High Court both dismissed the revisions 
and affirmed the order of grant of maintenance. Thereafter, on 16.6.1998, G 
appellant filed an IA seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 46000 for the 
period 20.1.1993 to 16.6.1998. Respondent paid only Rs. 5365 for a period 
20.1.1999 to 31.8.1999 and took a stand that no further amount was 
payable as the IA filed on 16.6.1998 was time barred under the proviso to 
Section 125(3) CrPC. Trial Court dismissed the IA on the ground of 
153 
H 
154 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A limitation while Sessions Court held that bar of limitation did not apply. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Respondent was successful in revision before High Court. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. The amount of maintenance became due by virtue of the 
trial Court's order passed on 20.1.1993 and in order to seek recovery of 
the amount due by issuance of warrant, application is to be made within 
a period of one year from the date the amount became due. In the present 
case, Crl. Misc. Petition was filed well within one year. As no amount was 
paid even after the disposal of the matter by the High Court, the appellant 
filed I.A. wherein the arrears due up to that date were calculated and 
sought recovery of that amount under Section 125 (3). Thus, LA'.. was filed 
even when Crl. Misc. Petition was pending and no action to issue warrant 
was taken in that proceeding. The fact that the additional amount was 
specified in the I.A. does not mean that the application. for execution of 
the order by issuing a warrant under Section 125(3) was a fresh application 
made for the first time. The main petition filed in the year 1993 was 
pending and kept alive and the filing of subsequent I.A. in 1998 was only 
to specify the exact amount which accrued upto that date: Such application 
is only supplementary or incidental to the petition already filed in 1993 
admittedly within the period of limitation. The fact that only a sum of Rs. 
5,365/- representing the arrears of eight months was mentioned therein 
does not curtail the scope of Crl. Misc. Petition filed in 1993 more so when 
no acti-On was taken thereon and it remained pending. (158-C, D, E, F, GI 
2. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under Section 
125(3) cannot be applied and the High Court has erred in reversing the 
order of Sessions Judge. 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. It is unreasonable to insist on filing successive 
applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order 
passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability. (158-H) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDlCTION : Criminal Appeal No. 673 
of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.2004 of the Karnataka High 
Court in Crl.R.P.No. 753 of 2003. 
) 
) 
'
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.