M.M.PUNCHHI, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by a wife who has a maintenance order in her favour, but has remained unsuccessful in executing it in entirety.
(2.) THE undisputed facts are these : - A Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, passed a maintenance order under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code at the rate of Rs. (sic) per month in favour of Kalawati wife -petitioner and @Rs 40 per month in favour of her minor daughter named Shakuntla living with the petitioner. The husband's revision petition against it was dismissed by the Court of Session on 24.12.1977. His further challenge to the maintenance order failed in this court on 15.3.1978, vide decision in Criminal petition No. 171 -M of 1978. However, during the pendency thereof this Court had stayed the execution of the order which had remained operative from 10.1.1978 till 15.3.1978. The husband then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India and then obtained a stay order on 4.7.1978, which remained operative till 2.1.1980. On that day the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. After the passing of the maintenance order the petitioner filed her first execution application on 7.11.1977. Obviously, whatever was due on that date had been sought to be recovered from the respondents. Seemingly since there was pending litigation and the husband had been securing stay orders from time to time, she did not file any subsequent execution application till 5.9.1980, when she moved the Court the second time. The learned Magistrate held that the respondent -husband was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,250 and another sum of Rs. 600 due to the petitioner. The husband filed a revision petition before the Court of Session where the right to recover the sum of Rs. 600 was not challenged. With regard to the remaining sum of Rs. 5,250 it was held that the petitioner was entitled to recover only Rs. 2,656 and not the remaining Rs. 4,494. The order of the learned Magistrate was thus accordingly modified. This had given rise to the petitioner to approach this Court in this second revision. The main argument which has prevailed with the Additional Session Judge was that under sub -section (3) of section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, the Magistrate can for every breach of the order of maintenance, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying of fines but only if an application is made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. It is on that understanding of law that part of the sum was held to be not recoverable, for concededly within the period from 7.11.1977 till 5.9.1980 the petitioner had moved no application for the recovery of sums falling due.
(3.) A perusal of her order of the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi, dated 6.3.1981 goes to show that the application filed by the wife bore a prayer that the property given in the list be attached by a warrant, because the respondent had failed to make the payment of maintenance allowance amounting to Rs. 5,250. As is plain therefrom these steps were suggestive of the provisions of section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code, presumably those of clause (a) of sub -section (1) thereof. The Legislature in its wisdom has however chosen that the drastic action for issuance of warrant under sub -section (3) of Section 125 read with section 421 of the Code should remain limitation bound. All the same other processes known to law have not been cast aside for the maintained wife to avail of. Surely on the non -availability of the right to recover the sum as if it was a fine levied, is not the end of order of maintenance. It only means that there is no urgent or stringent measure to be taken to come to the aid of the wife. The execution of the order in her favour at the pain of attachment and sale of moveable property of the husband, or recovery through the agency of the Collector as arrears of land revenue from his moveable or immovable property, or in given circumstances by putting him in prison under sub -section (3) of section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are exceptional coercive steps, and for these as in the instant cse, the wife who had sought to execute the maintenance orders by attachment of the properties of her husband had obviously to satisfy the court, that her claim was within limitation, on which she obviously failed. The precedent cited on her behalf Deviden Chenaji v. Mankibai Devideen, 1966 Crl. L.J. 1089, can have no applicability to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as no parallel proceedings were pending on 7.11.1977, when the first application was made and equally so was the case on 5.9.1980, when the second application was made. For the view I have taken, there is no option but to affirm the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Accordingly this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.;