IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 RPFC.No. 279 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/07/2007 IN CMP No.807/2007 IN MC.474/2006 of the FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- ASHARAF, S/O. KUNHEEN HAJI, VENKITTA THAZHATHETHIL VEEDU, VADAKKANGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY MR.BABU S. NAIR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------- 1. SHAHINA, D/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, KOZHITHODI VEEDU, RAMAPURAM, PUZHAKKATTIRI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SITHARA NASRIN, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, MOTHER - GUARDIAN. 3. SINAM NASSAR, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, MOTHER, GUARDIAN. BY MR.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 MR.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI,ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 MR.K.B.SUJAI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 MR.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 SMT.K.M.RAMYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-3 THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.(F.C.).No.279/2007 ORDER IN CRL.M.A.7638/2007 IN R.P.(F.C.)No.279/2007 DISMISSED. Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE 08/01/2010 TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN,J =========================== R.P.(F.C).No.279 of 2007 =========================== Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 ORDER This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Malappuram in C.M.P.No.807/2007 in M.C.No.474/2006. This application was filed on 5.4.2007 claiming arrears of maintenance of Rs.27,200/-. It is contended that previously the petitioners have moved a petition for arrears of maintenance of Rs.33,000/-(Rupees thirty three thousand only) for a period of 20 months' commencing from 23.2.2005 to 21.11.2006. The Family Court, by an order, closed that petition holding that the petition is closed for the time being with liberty to claim if any by filing another C.M.P. At that point of time, out of Rs.33,000/-(Rupees thirty three thousand only) Rs.19,800/-(Rupees nineteen thousand eight hundred only) was paid and there was a balance of Rs.13,200/-(Rupees thirteen thousand two hundred only). Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application for enhancement and the court fixed the maintenance at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) together for all and so the C.M.P was filed for realisation of Rs.13,200/-(Rupees thirteen thousand R.P.(F.C.).No.279/2007 2 and two hundred only) due under the previous C.M.P plus Rs.14,000/-(Rupees fourteen thousand only) for seven months' after the revised order, thereby claiming a total sum of Rs.27,200/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand and two hundred only). The learned Family Court Judge held that the entire Rs.27,200/-(Rupees twenty seven thousand and two hundred only) is relisable and only an amount of Rs.9,271/-(Rupees nine thousand two hundred and seventy one) is paid and so balance amount of Rs.17,929/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and twenty nine only) has to be paid. It is against that decision the present revision is filed. It has to be remembered that as per the original order the wife was entitled to get Rs.650/-(Rupees six hundred and fifty only) as maintenance and the children at Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred) each. Now, the first application was filed for a period of twenty months' commencing from 22.3.2005 to 21.11.2006. It is contended that by virtue of the proviso of Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C no warrant shall be issued for recovery of the above amount due under the Section unless the application to be made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became R.P.(F.C.).No.279/2007 3 due. So, a period of one year is prescribed initially for moving the application for issuance of warrant. Now, out of Rs.1,650/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred and fifty) ordered to be paid originally Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) is due to the minors together and Rs.650/-(Rupees six hundred and fifty only) is due to the wife. A reference of the decision reported in Laxmi and others v. Nakka Narayan Goud and another [1994 CRI.L.J 565] would reveal that the proviso of Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C is not applicable to minor maintenance holders in view of Sections 3, 6 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act. So, there cannot be any bar of limitation so far as the minors are concerned. So far as the wife is concerned limitation is applicable. On the date of filing of the first application for a period of 20 months' the period of 8 months is barred by limitation for the reason that it has not been filed within a stipulated period of one year under Section 125(3) proviso. When it is so an amount of Rs.5,200/- (Rupees five thousand and two hundred only) is to be deleted. When Rs.5,200/-(Rupees five thousand and two hundred only) is deleted from Rs.17,929/-(Rupees seventeen thousand nine hundred and twenty nine only) the balance amount due as per R.P.(F.C.).No.279/2007 4 the order would be Rs.12,729/-(Rupees twelve thousand seven hundred and twenty nine). So, I find that the amount due is Rs.12,729/-(Rupees twelve thousand seven hundred and twenty nine only) and a direction is given to pay the said amount as expeditiously as possible, failing which coercive steps can be taken against the revision petitioner. The R.P.(F.C) is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs