HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSGARH AT BU.AS Cr.M.P.No.57of2006 Apoticant Chheciu Ram Netam, Sfo Late Shikari Natem aged about 52 yeare, R/o Village Devari Baiaji) P.S. & Tahsil Narharpur, Distt.Kankw (C.G.) '/ Resoondent ^rsys Smt.Kalawati Netam W/o Chheduram Netam Caste Gond, aged about 50 years, iage Bhaismundi, P.S. & Tehsi! )tett.Kanker (C.G.) (APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) (SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Mr. R.S.Patei, counsel forthe applicant. Mr.Anarid ShukSa, counse! appears cn behalf of Mr.Parag Kotechs, counsei for the respondent. ORAL ORDER (Passed c" 1st Apri', 2SSS) This petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the First Addltional Sessions Judge, Kanker, In Criminal Revision No.142/04 affirming the orcier dated 14.10.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kanker, in M.JC No.53/2004 whereby the tearned Judicial Magistrate First Class has awarded the maintenance of Rs.700^- per month to the respondent who is wjfe ofthe applicant. 2. The order is challenged on the ground that the respondent has claimed the maintenance after lapse of 26 years and she herself has daserted the appiicant, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 2-0 / have heard learned counsel for the pardes and perused the order 4 Lea.rned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent is wife of the applicant but she Is living separately from the applicant since last 26 years without any reasonable cause. The applicant has not deserted her, therefore, the respondent is not entitied for any maintenance undar Section 125 of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). Learned counse! placed reliance in the matter of Vjmlabai v.TaSsirasTs !n which the High Court of Madhya Pradssh has heid that lapss of 17 years, wlfe is not entitled for any interim maintenance. Leamed counset fusthsr p!aced reiiancs in the mattsr of Bhaggo Bai v.State of M.P.2 j." v.'hich the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has aiso held that application made after 10or15yearsisnot maintainabte. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned and submits that no limitation has been provided in Chapter 9 ofthe Code, therefore, the applicant's claim cannot be dented on the ground of delay. Provisions of Section 125 of Ihe Code reads as under:- "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- (1) If any pereon having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) his wife, unabte to maintain herself, or (b) his legiUmate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not. unabte to maintain itself, or (c) his letitimate or illegitimate chitd (not bsing a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, ' MPWN 158 (1992) ZMPWN504(1984) ^^ 3 a Magistrate of the first cla.ss may, upon proof of such negiect or refusa!, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wjfe or such child, father or motiier, at such monthly rate, as such magistrate ttiinks ffi, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to tlme direct: Provided that the Magistrato may order the father of a minor femate child referred to in dause (b) to make such allowance, unti! she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisflect that the husband of such minor female chiid, if marrted, is not possessed of sufficient means, Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly atlowance for the maintenance under this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly ailowance for the interim maintenance of his wjfe or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceedmg which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to tims direct: XXX XXX XXX xxx xxx xxx XXX " XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX" B/- 7 No specific limitation has been provided by th®tegislature for r.!aim of maintenance, Both the Courte below have arrived at a fincling that the respondent is entitied for maintenance and she is having sufRcient ground for living separately from her husband. Maintenance cannot be dented on the ground of delay. 1 do not find any merit in this petition, 8, Consequentiy, the petition being devoid of merit is liabte to be dismissed and it is hersby ctismissed, ~7T77°=a~- T.P.Sharma Judge