$§ngle Bench i§l_THE HON'Bi E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No. § QLZOltdP PETITION Ul\l{)FR SECTEON 48'2" OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROQIEDURE E‘FING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER DATED 16.061/20‘11 PASSED IN QRIMINAL REVISION NO. 203/2610 BY LEARNED SESEIONS TUDQEJLFEQ) RAKGARH (CJGJ WHEREBY THE LEARNED SESSTONS'MJQDGE HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER DATED 18 11 ?010 PkE'BFD BY LEARNED JMFO DHARMJAIGARH IN FRiMTNAl £AFF NO 78’20010 THEREBY LEARNED LEARNED il’EQ DHARMJATGARH PAiaaED THE RECOVERY ORDER AjiAINbT lHt APFLIQANT, THE APPI TCANT. BEGS TO PREFER THIS PETITION ON THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND GROUNDS :- APPLICANT Narendra Das, S/o Narayan handra Das ’ Caste Kayasths ’ LE W lJ,femlgml aced abou 46 years by occupassion Labour r/o Village nehreu Nagar Thana &Tah5ll Amb‘kapur Dustt SarguJa (C.G.), ygrsus BESPQNDENT 1: Smt. Pratima Das, D/o Late Shri . Ratan Rudra, aged about 4O mm—ntl years, By occupation Stitching and Webing “\\\ (u Amta Das D/o Narandra Das I\N%'\{)¢k\ g - WW3 ‘ ace about 22 years Agrasen ru sumta Das D/o Narandra “Aw-g“ aw 3%.). Das age about 20 year's ? 2‘ ggvsg $5, www k° AH are r/O village Dharmjaigarh, Thana & Tahsii Dharmjaigarh, iEis‘tt. Raigarh (C.G.). Present Address Jindal Gorkha Colony Raigarh Tnana & Tahsii Raigarh {C.G.) (Q Shri Ak‘hiiesh Kumar, coun:;ei for the petitioner. Shri Rakes'h Pandey, coun$ei for the respondents. Though the matter was iisted in motion hearing, with the consent of the parties, the matter is heard tinaiiy. By this petition, the petiti ‘ er has caiieoi in question the correctness and vaiidity of order dated 16106/201 1 passed in criminal revision No.203i10 by which order dated 18!1 172010 passed b the Magistrate has been affirmed. On an appiication for gra t of maintenance filed by the respondents, an order was passed on 30/1‘ 0f98 y the Magistrate awarding maintenance to the ..‘‘‘ respondents. .The respondents fti d an appiication under Section 125 (3) Uri-’U on 30/08/08 for execution of the ord r of maintenance andrecovery of the amount. The aforesaid appiication was pa tiy aiiowed vide order dated 18ft 1710 by which the learned Magistrate ordered ecovery of the amount of maintenance w.e.f. 30/08/137 in favour of respondent No.1 only. rejecting appiications of respondent No.2 and '3 on the ground that t ey have become major. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was preferred, which has aiso been dismissed, hence, this petition. Learned counsel for the a piicant contended that the iearned Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction in ent rtaining applications for execution filed under Section 1‘25 (’3) CrPC as the ap tlcation for execution of the amount under the order was liabie to be rejected ’ ecause the respondents sought to execute an order passed way back on 30/1 r98 which is far beyond the period of limitation prescribed. tt is next contended t at in view of the subsequent developments that respondent No.1 was living in a ultery and decree of divorce, on the ground of mm C"’T’VV‘fMg? ] ’ 200 311%“ was (wince) Warm am 2minm m an?! m mat? mat d f’stzt than % aiftrtrm SB : Hon’ble Shri Manindra Mot an Shrivastava J 91 -‘! 1. -2011 311wm (wwiu) WWW r_&_ WW, 'gm,m 200 aduitery was granted in favour of the petitionerx the appiication was iiabie to be reiected. The Magistrate has recorded that the provisions of Section 1‘25 (3) CrPC permit recovery of an amount due for a period of one year reiying upon the decision in the case of Mamta v: 'Eudhmai Raiak, M.P.Weekiy Note. 2004 ('2‘! Note N049 andNazma u Bi ' §mt. As far as chaiienge t0 the divorce on theéground of aduit proceedings under $ection 1'25 (3} of subsequent change in the circ iiabie to be revoked or otherwise move appropriate appiication under the order of maintenance passed e e ier on 30H 0/98. a i mw wm aaai‘Emanéw §eepir ;vi:,._\» : v. Usman Shaikh. MP. Weekiy Note. 2W2 r1) Note No.204. ‘The order pass ed by the Magistrate is oniy to the effect of recovering the amount of mainte nce in respect of the period of one year immediately preceding the date of Iiing of the appiication. The order therefore. does not suffer from any iiiegaiity no can it be said to be in excess ofjurisdiction. der on the ground of passing of decree of is concerned, it cannot be agitated in PC. if according to the petitioner, on account ances, the order of grant of maintenance is ified, it wouid be open for the petitioner to ection 1'27 CrPC for variation or revocation of I in vie“; or the aforesaid discus sions, the petition is frnaiiy disposed off‘ Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge u r r t d