Dilshad Haji Risal v. State of U.P. : 2006 Cri.L.J 228 : AIR 2005 AII 403 : 2005 (53) ACrC 680 (1) DMC 461 : 2006 (1) HLR 717 : 2006 (1) 2006 (1) MarLJ 480 : 2006 (1) RCR (Cri) 179 : 2006 (2) LRC 97 (All)
Section 125(3)-Maintenance of wife and children-Execution of order-Limitation-Interim application for recovery of maintenance allowance-Bar of limitation does not apply.
Held : Learned counsel for the applicant has further contended that the application as given by the opposite party for recovery of maintenance for 41 months on 13.2.2004 was barred by time as it was given after one year of the amount having become due. But this contention of the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted in view of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanta @ Usha Devi v. B.G. Shivananjappa, . In this case it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the bar of limitation of one year as given under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. first proviso is not applicable in case of interim application given for recovery of maintenance allowance. It has also been held that insisting of filing successive application is only unreasonable since liability to pay maintenance is continuing liability.
In the instant case when the application was moved on 13.2.2004, the first application filed for recovery of maintenance on 28.08.2000 was still pending as the applicant has not paid any maintenance allowance.