@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.128 of 2007 Smt. Kirti Devi W/o Shri Laxminarayan Dubey, Aged about 3O years, R/o village Udaypur (Dhab) Thana & Tahsil Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G. Versus Laxminarayan Dubey S/o Ram Vriksh'a Dubey Aged about 35 years, occupation Driver, R/O Mendrakaia, Post Bhitthi kaia Thana Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) APPLICANT: NON—APPLICANT: {Criminal revision under Section 19 (4) ofthe Family Court Act read'with ” . Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure} Present: Mr. Sanjay Patel, Counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicant, though served. sentin is mad. No Single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER . (10-2—2011) l 1‘- tr. 1. By this revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act, the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 3-2-2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur in Criminal MJC No.427/2005, whereby learned Judge, Family Court has denied the claim I of maintenance of the applicant herein on the ground that she has filed application after lapse of seven years and she is interested in the property of the non—applicant herein. 2. l have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the order impugned and record ofthe Family Court. , 3pLearned counsel for the applicant submits that by detailed finding the Family Court has held thatthe applicant is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, earlier she has filed application for maintenance which has been dismissed for want of evidence vlde order dated 25-1-2005 and l t — e ‘ thereafter, sherhas again filed application that too after seven years of ‘ cause of action. On the aforesaid ground, the Family Court has it ) ‘~ ‘ repreato e 2 ' (42‘) dismissed the application for maintenance filed on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that provisions of Section 125 of the CrPC do not provide any Iimitation and liability of maintenance is continuous cause of action. Previously, the applicant was maintained by her relatives and even she was able to maintain herself and, therefore, she has not filed any application for maintenance, but when she became unable to ‘maintain herself, then, only she has tiled“““ application for maintenance. 4. Order impugned reveals that the Family Court has arrived at finding that the applicant is legally wedded wife of the non-applicant, her claim of maintenance has been denied ‘Only on the ground that she has filed application after lapse of seven years In absence of any limitation under Section 125 of the CrPC for filing such application dismissal of applrcatron on the aforesaid ground Is not sustainable under the law .Consequently, the revision is allowed and the order refusing maintenance on the ground of delay is hereby set aside. The case is" " remitted back to the Family Court, Ambikapur. The Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the claim of maintenance afresh, especially relating to quantum of maintenance. . The applicant is directed to present before the Judge Family Court Ampr 732011 bikau on -- / ‘77 V, > 5dr— T.P. SHARMA Judge L . i ‘ .