1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Rajesh Kumar Vs. Rekha Rani & another. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.192/2008. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 18th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Praveen Jain for the petitioner. Mr. Sudarshan Laddha for the respondents.. BY THE COURT: This revision petition under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order of the revisional court dated 7th November, 2007 whereby the order passed by the trial court dated 20th April, 2006 has been set aside and the petitioner has been directed to to pay the outstanding amount of interim maintenance for the period from 30th May, 2008 to 3rd August, 2006 to the respondents in view of the earlier order of maintenance. It has been contended that the order of the revisional court suffers from legal infirmity as it has been passed against the mandatory provisions of Section 125(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is contended that in the present matter, the respondent wife filed an application for recovery of the amount due and the above amount was paid to the respondent, therefore, in 2 the same proceedings on moving the application for the purpose of recovery of the amount which became due during the course of proceedings was also ordered by the court to be paid by the petitioner. It is contended that a separate application was required to be filed. On the other hand, it has been contended that the original order regarding maintenance dated 21st April, 2000 has never been challenged either by the husband-petitioner or by wife, therefore, that order has become final. It is also contended that before the revisional court it was argued that an application was moved for passing appropriate orders for the period during which the execution petition was pending and the revisional court has passed appropriate order. It is contended that since no challenge to the original order was made, therefore, the husband cannot take a plea that in view of section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in the same proceedings since the application was moved, the same was not liable to be accepted. I have considered the submissions made before me. It is not necessary to go deep into the matter but the fact of the matter is that it is a case between husband and wife and in the instant case, the wife along with her daughter moved an application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. which was allowed and the interim amount was awarded by the learned trial court which was never challenged and, therefore, that takes finality. It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and 3 daughter. In the case of Shantha @ Ushadevi & another Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa 2005(2) WLC 13, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. has observed that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be applied. The High Court has erred in reversing the order of Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liberty to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability. In the instant case, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that minor daughter and wife have only claimed the amount which was initially ordered by the learned trial court and in execution proceedings when application was moved at the time of deciding the case that it may also be ordered that the amount which became due during the course of pendency of the execution petition should also be paid to the wife and minor daughter. I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J)