KHEM CHAND SHARMA,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties for final disposal at the admission stage.
(2.) THIS revision petition under section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. arises out of the order dated 26.9.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bharatpur, allowing the revision petition preferred against the order dated 23.4.2001 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No. 2. Bharatpur. Respondent Ajay @ Ashok filed an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate claiming maintenance amount for the period from 19.2.1996 to 18.2.2001. The learned Magistrate allowed the application of the respondent to the extent that he is entitled to get maintenance of preceding one year from the date of filing of application i.e. 22.2.2002. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred a revision petition before the court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that limitation of one year prescribed under Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the case of a minor. In case of a minor, the prescribed period of limitation is to be reckoned after the disability has ceased and he may file an application within the same period after the disability has ceased.
(3.) IT appears that the original order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was passed on 19.2.1996. At that time, respondent Ajay was minor and he attained majority on 18.8.1999, on 22.2.2000, he filed an application for recovery of maintenance for the period from 19.2.1996 to 18.2.2000.;