Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. As the amount as directed was not paid by the petitioner, the opposite parties filed the Criminal Proceeding No.25 of 2008 before the Judge, Family Court, Rourkela under section 128, Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the order of maintenance. The petitioner took a stand that the application filed under section 128, Cr.P.C. by the opposite parties on 14.05.2008 having been filed more than one year after the date when the maintenance became due, the application is not maintainable. The opposite party no.1 took a stand that she being a poor, rustic, illiterate and distress woman was not aware of the legal provision as to limitation for which she could not file a petition within the time stipulated on behalf of her minor son aged only three years. The learned court below recorded that the judgment directing payment of maintenance was allowed on 18.04.2006, thus the claim for arrears should have been made by 17.04.2007 and the application under section 128, Cr.P.C. has been filed on 14.05.2008, i.e., beyond one year and one month after the due date. However, he held that the case is clearly an exception from a normal case as in the instant case the opposite party no.2 is a minor child of only three years and therefore, he being a minor is under a legal disability as per section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which provides that during legal disability limitation does not start to run in respect of any suit or petition for execution of a decree until such disability ceases. Section-8 of the Limitation Act gives further chance of three years of limitation after seizure of legal disability. The Court below, therefore, applying the said provisions to the facts of the present case held that the opposite party no.2 is a minor and under a legal disability as per section 6 of the Limitation Act. Limitation for filing a petition under section 128, Cr.P.C. for execution of the order of the maintenance shall not start until his legal disability ceases, i.e, until he attains the age of 18 years. Observing thus, the Court below repelled the objection raised by the petitioner with regard to non-maintainability of the application filed under section 128, Cr.P.C. on the ground of limitation and allowed the application of the opposite parties directing the petitioner to pay all the arrear maintenance dues, which was to be paid to the opposite party no.2 within fifteen days from the date of the said order in one instalment failing which the opposite party no.1 is at liberty to apply on behalf of her minor son to enforce such payment through the process of court.

5. Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties, on the contrary, submitted that there is no error committed by the learned court below in directing payment of the entire arrear maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 as has been held by this Court in the case of Jasolal Agrawalla alias Jaasolal Jain v. Smt. Pushpabati Agrawalla, 2006 (Supplementary) Volume-I, OLR 223. He further submitted that as has been held by this Court, it must be borne in mind that section 125, Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed without rhyme or reason for the welfare and benefit of the wife, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Shantha @ Usha Devi and another v. B.G. Shiva Nanjappa, 2005 AIR SCW 2613. For proper appreciation of the rival contentions raised by the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to sections 125 (3) and 128, Cr.P.C., which read as follows:

9. In view of the peculiar facts of the above case, I am of the view that the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, it is imperative to conclude that as has been laid down by this Court in the case of Hagiri Dei (supra) and Bimala Dei (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained since the learned court below has apparently erred in law in placing reliance on sections 6 and 8 of the Limitation Act, which were not applicable to the facts of the present case, where the opp. Party no. 2 is still a minor and his legal disability has not come to an end. Thus, the impugned order directing payment of the entire arrear maintenance to the petitioner no.2 within fifteen (15) days is quashed and the order is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall pay the maintenance as awarded for 12 months preceding the date of application filed under section 128, Cr.P.C., i.e., for the months of June, 2007 to May, 2008 amounting to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) within a period of three weeks from today to the opposite party no.2 through his mother guardian-opposite party no.1 failing which appropriate steps will be taken by the learned Judge, Family Court for enforcement of the same and in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioner shall continue to pay the current maintenance regularly.