- (1.) N. B. Asthana, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the order, dated 7-2-1995 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Criminal Case No. 153/94 under Section 128, Cr. P. C. filed in criminal case No. 19/90 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. Smt. Nikhat Sultan v. Abdul Haq.
(2.) THE contention of the revisionist is that he divorced opposite party No. 2 on 20-10-1994 and is there fore not liable to pay her maintenance allowance from that date. THE application moved by the opposite party No. 2 for recovery of the maintenance allowance would show that claimed such allowance for the period 21-12-1993 to 21-10-1994 and for arrears which were previously due and with respect to which she had filed applications earlier namely 80/92, 48/93 and 7/94. It is thus clear that she has not claimed maintenance allowance for the period after 21-10-1994, It has not been disputed by the learned counsel that the revisionist is liable to pay maintenance allowance till the date of divorce. It was then contended that the opposite party No. 2 can claim maintenance allowance only for a period of 12 months and not more. From the application itself it appears that she moved such application in the years 1992, 1993 and 1994, but those applications are still pending. It cannot there fore be said that she is claiming maintenance allowance for more than 12 months in any one such applications. She moved such applications in theyears 1992, 1993 and 1994. If the recovery has not been made of the main tenance allowance of these years so far, it cannot be said that the recovery proceedings have become barred by time. It was then argued that the trial Judge should have recorded finding that the opposite party No. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance allowance after the date of alleged divorce, It does not appear that she has claimed maintenance allowance for this period. In case she moved application claiming maintenance allowance for the period subsequent to the date of divorce then the revisionist would be entitled to file objection to it and then the trial court would be duty bound to decide that controversy. Since the maintenance allowance has not been claimed after the date of divorce, it was not incumbent upon the trial Judge to record any finding whether any divorce as alleged by the revisionist has been given or not.
(3.) WITH the above observations the revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Revision dismissed. .;