1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1867/2007 SMT.SUMAN & ANOTHER V. THE STATE & ANOTHER. DATE: 08/09/2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. B.L.Choudhary, for Petitioner (s). Mr.J.P.S.Chaudhary, PP, for the State. Mr.N.L.Joshi, for Respondlent No.2. Heard arguments on this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. As narrated in the petition, petitioner filed an application under Section 125 (3), Cr.P.C., before the Magisterial Court for recovery of maintenance allowance Rs.3000/- per month as awarded by the order dated 23.01.2003 and confirmed in revision vide order dated 09.05.2003 – next date fixed was March 4th, but inadvertently, concerned Advocate noted April 7th on which date found was that case was dismissed. Restoration application filed on 29.04.2005 was also dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2007 – requests that order dismissing application for recovery may be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on March 4th, concerned Advocate could not appear, but still as the application was simply for recovery of maintenance, it ought not to have been rejected – even if rejected, the application for restoration ought to have been accepted. Submitted that for justice, it is necessary that recovery of maintenance amount is effected. 2 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed. In course of arguments, it was stated that though the recovery application has been dismissed in the above circumstances, but for the pending amount, afresh application can be as per provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts that subject to rider provided under Section 125 (3), Cr.P.C., successive application may lie. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also stated that he may be given liberty to file fresh application for recovery of amount and accordingly petition may be disposed of. Considered. Maintenance allowance is recoverable as per provisions of Section 125 (3), Cr.P.C., if any amount is due as per provisions, the petitioner may initiate proceedings as per law. Looking to the above, there is no force in this petition and the petition is rejected. For recovery of the amount due, the petitioner shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings as per law. (C. M. TOTLA), J. scd