Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
(2.) This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for releasing the petitioner from custody on account of non-payment of monthly maintenance.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been taken into judicial custody since 03.07.2015 on the application made by the opposite party No. 2 for execution of the order of maintenance passed on 23.07.1986. He further submits that in terms of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of the Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., learned court below was precluded from issuing any warrant of arrest for recovery of any amount as the application for execution of the order of maintenance was made much after the statutory period of one year for making such application from the date it had become due. It has also been submitted that Subsection (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. categorically states that for any amount remaining unpaid and after execution of the warrant, the imprisonment of such person can be only for a period of one month or sooner if the payment is made. It has been submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period in view of the specific bar in terms of Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, learned counsel has also referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Laljee Yadav v. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2011(4) PLJR 248 .;