RAJENDRAN Vs. MINOR REVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is revision filed against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Pudukottai, in Crl.M.P. No. 3309 of 1993, dated 4-7-1994, directing the petitioner to pay the arrears of maintenance to the respondent/minor daughter.

(2.) It is contended in this revision by the petitioner, that under Section 125 (3), Cr.P.C, execution petition can be filed claiming arrears of maintenance only for 12 months period, i.e., one year, from the date on which it became due, but the order impugned in this revision has been passed by the learned Magistrate, allowing the claim for 29 months' period. It is further submitted by Ms. T. Priya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the application under Section 125 (3), Cr.P.C., was not made within a period of one year from the date on which the amount became due. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision in Govind Sahai vs. Prem Devi, wherein the Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High Court has held as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance of a decision in Jangam Srinivasa Rao vs. Jangam Rajeswari and another, wherein Jagannadha Raju, J. of Andhra Pradesh High Court, has observed as follows :