Dear Respected members,
I want to know the time limit to file the recovery petition after the Maintenance Order is Passed. Also do a Husband have to pay all the arrears if the recovery petition is filled after 3 yrs of the Maintenance Order??? CRPC 125
In the landmark case V.B.Kamalanathan vs K.Jayasree The petitioner herein is the husband and the first respondent is his wife and the second and third respondents are his minor children. The wife filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.145 of 2012 on the file of the aforesaid Court under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Code'). During the pendency of the said maintenance case, since the husband did not maintain the wife and children, and due to which, since the wife and children were suffering to maintain themselves, the wife filed an interim application in M.P.No.495 of 2012 in the said M.C.No.145 of 2012 seeking for interim maintenance from the husband.
M.P.No.495 of 2012 seeking for interim maintenance was heard and decided by the learned Judge by order dated 02.03.2015. In the said order, the learned Judge directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each for the wife and two children, altogether a total sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife and children, from the date of the petition i.e., from 01.08.2012.
Inspite of the said order of interim maintenance having been passed by the learned Judge as set out above, since the husband did not come forward to make the payment, as alleged by the wife, the wife filed yet another petition in M.P.No.198 of 2016 in M.P.No.495 of 2012 in M.C.No.145 of 2012 under Section 125(3) of the Code to seek for a direction directing the husband to make the payment of arrears for the period between 01.08.2012 and 30.4.2015, i.e., for 33 months at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month and a total sum of Rs.9.30,000/-. This petition under Section 125(3) of the Code was filed by the wife on 21.5.2015. It seems that in this petition i.e., M.P.No.198 of 2016, since the husband did not appear before the Court on the hearing date, the learned Judge by order dated 17.3.2016, ordered arrest of the husband, by 31.5.2016.
Here in this case, as has been narrated above, the petitioner / husband without any sufficient cause failed to comply with the order of interim maintenance and in order to ensure compliance of the said order, the respondent / wife, rightly invoked proviso to sub section (3) of Section 125 by filing the present petition which was decided
Here in this case, as has been narrated above, the petitioner / husband without any sufficient cause failed to comply with the order of interim maintenance and in order to ensure compliance of the said order, the respondent / wife, rightly invoked proviso to sub section (3) of Section 125 by filing the present petition which was decided by the learned Judge after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties. Since the order of interim maintenance was confirmed by the rejection of the revision filed by the petitioner /husband, the order becomes final and therefore, the same has to be complied with by the petitioner / husband. Since the arrears of interim maintenance is mounting every month, the point of period of limitation of 12 months as raised by the petitioner / husband also, cannot be made against the respondent / wife. Therefore, in all aspects, the order impugned, is sustainable and does not suffer with any illegality or impropriety. Therefore, this Court finds that the order impugned requires no interference from this Court. Since at the time of initial hearing of this revision, this Court passed a conditional order of making 50% of the payment of arrears which was admittedly not complied with by the petitioner / husband, moreover, the petitioner / husband has not shown any plausible reason for non payment of arrears and therefore, for this reason also, he deserves to meet the situation, which he is facing pursuant to the order impugned, as the same, is a justifiable legal measure to be followed within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 125 of the Code. Therefore, for all these reasons, this Court finds that the impugned order is sustainable and accordingly, it requires no interference. Hence, this revision case is dismissed without any costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
This case is same as to your situation. You will get every possible understanding from the same.
