IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 RPFC.No. 196 of 2009 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2009 IN CMP 70/09 IN MC.601/2003 of .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- N.HAMEED, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, NEDUMPALLY HOUSE, MOOLAKKAL P.O., THANALOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. BENAZIR, D/O.HAMZA @ BAPPU, PALLIKKALAKATH HOUSE, PURATHOOR, PADINJAREKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. DILSHAD-MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT-MOTHER-GUARDIAN. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: app/- THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.(F.C.)No.196 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2009 O R D E R Heard both sides. This revision is in challenge of order dated 20.5.2009 of the Family Court, Malappuram on CMP (Ex.) No.70 of 2009 in MC. No.601 of 2003 to the extent it concerned claim of respondent No.1 for recovery of maintenance. 2. As per order dated 8.9.2004 court below awarded maintenance to respondent No.1 at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month payable from the date of petition (18.11.203). In the meantime, petitioner divorced respondent No.1 on 30.6.2006. Respondents filed CMP No.70 of 2009 in the court below on 12.1.2009 claiming recovery of maintenance for the period from 1.7.2006 to 31.12.2008. Warrant was issued for realisation of the amount due for the said period but in vain. Petitioner preferred objection to CMP No.70 of 2009 stating that on account of divorce on 30.6.2006 and respondent No.1 filing petition under section 3(1) of Muslim R.P.(F.C.)No.196 of 2009 2 Women (Protection of Rights of Divorce) Act (for short, “the Act”) she is not entitled to claim maintenance after 30.6.2006. It was also contended that claim of respondent No.1 beyond a period of 12 months preceding the filing of petition on 12.1.2009 is barred by limitation. Learned Judge found that petitioner is liable to pay maintenance for the entire period of claim and directed him to pay such amount. That order is under challenge. 3. It is not disputed that petitioner divorced respondent No.1 on 30.6.2006 and consequent to that respondent No.1 has filed a petition under Section 3(1) of the Act. But, as the position of law now stands petitioner is obliged to pay maintenance until payment of the amounts referred to under section 3(1) of the Act is effected. 4. What remained for consideration is whether any portion of the claim of respondent No.1 as per CMP. No.70 of 2009 is barred by limitation. It is not disputed that when CMP. No.70 of 2009 was preferred there was no other petition on behalf of respondent No.1 pending in the court R.P.(F.C.)No.196 of 2009 3 below for realisation of the amount. If that be so, so far as respondent No.1 is concerned proviso to section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure must apply and warrant could have been issued against petitioner only for realisation of the amount payable for a period of one year preceding the filing of petition on 12.1.2009. The Claim made on behalf of respondent No.1 for realisation of maintenance before 13.1.2008 is barred by limitation and in respect of that claim, no warrant could have been issued against the petitioner. To that extent, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and I do so. Resultantly this revision petition is allowed in part and the order under challenge is set aside to the extent it concerned claim of respondent No.1 for realisation maintenance for the period prior to 13.1.2008. In other respects, the order under challenge is confirmed. THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. app/-