HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.138 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30-12-2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.5075 of 2007 in M.C.No.13 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of maintenance for the period from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006 payable to the respondents 1 and 2 herein. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are wife and son of the petitioner. They filed M.C.No.13 of 2002 seeking maintenance. The said M.C came to be allowed on 23-09-2003 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to each from the date of petition i.e. 21-08-2002. Aggrieved by the order passed in M.C.No.13 of 2002, the petitioner filed revision and the said revision ended in dismissal. Assailing the order passed by the revisional Court, the petitioner is stated to have filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the order passed by the revisional Court and the said revision is stated to be pending. While so, the respondents 1 and 2 herein filed Crl.M.P.No.5075 of 2007 under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C seeking direction to the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of maintenance for the period from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006. The learned Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kavali, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, allowed the petition and directed the petitioner herein to pay the arrears by 08-01-2009. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein before the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, is barred by limitation and therefore there is no obligation on the part of the petitioner herein to pay the arrears of maintenance. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. if any person causes dis-obedience with regard to the order of maintenance, the Court is competent to issue a warrant and sentence him for the whole or any part of each month’s allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance. Learned counsel refers sub-section 3 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. It reads as hereunder: “Section 125 (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made.” There is no dispute that the order passed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 allowing the maintenance at the rate of Rs.800/- by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kavali, is in force as on this day. What is sought for in Crl.M.P.No.5075 of 2007 is arrears of maintenance for the period from 30- 09-2005 to 29-09-2006. It is not the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kavali, has been varied or modified. So long as the order passed by the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kavali remains in operation, there is an obligation on the part of the petitioner to comply the same. It is brought to my notice that the petitioner has deposited the arrears of maintenance pending the revision, in which case, the very purpose of the revision has become infructuous. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as infructuous. The respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner. ____________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY 29th March, 2011. VJL