IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 RPFC.No. 466 of 2009() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2009 IN CMP 31/2009 IN MC.291/2006 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- VIDYASAGOR,S/O.PRABHAKARAN,AGED 38, MELEPPARAMBIL VEEDU,VENGASSSERY,AKAVANDA, MANNUR DESOM,PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BINDHU,D/O.K.MADHAVAN,AGED 32, SABARISH NIVAS,NAGARIPPURAM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. AMRUTHA (MINOR) D/O.BINDHU, AGED 13 YEARS,REP.BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT. ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SRI.K.HARIDAS SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12950 OF 2009 IN RPFC.NO466 OF 2009 DISMISSED 22.03.2010 SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. cl M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... R.P.(F.C).No.466 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Family Court, Palakkad CMP.No.31/2009 in MC.No.291/2006. An order for maintenance from 8.4.2002 was passed on 30.4.2007 in favour of the minor child represented by her mother. The application for execution was filed only on 22.12.2008 i.e., one year after the pronouncement of the order to pay maintenance. Therefore it is contended that by virtue of the provision to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C, an application for execution has to be filed within one year. It has been held by the court that when arrears of maintenance from the date of petition is ordered, it will be one year from the date of order that has to be filed. But that will not save the situation of the petitioner herein for the reason that admittedly the said petition is filed beyond the period of one year. Now the major question is what would happen to the order of maintenance granted in favour of a minor. Whether the proviso will exclude him from claiming the amount. The said question has come up for : 2 : R.P.(F.C).No.466 OF 2009 consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the decision reported in Laxmi v. Nakka Narayan Goud (1994 Crl.L.J 565). The learned judge held that “even though one year's period for limitation of enforcement proceedings for the purpose mentioned under the 1st proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C is applicable for the major maintenance holders such as wife and parents because of Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963, the same is not applicable to the minor maintenance holders because of the benefit conferred upon the legally disabled under Section 6 of the Limitation Act. Section 6 dealing with legal disability is applicable in view of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act as the application of Section 6 thereof is not specially excluded under Chapter IX of Crl. P.C. This minors are not subjuris and the mere fact that they can be represented by mother, father or other guardians is of no consequence. Section 6 of the Limitation Act keeps the limitation in abeyance if the person is a minor, insane or an idiot. In so far as the order of maintenance under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C is concerned, once a minor attains majority, is not suffering from any mental or physical handicap, the maintenance order passed in his favour automatically disappears. Even then for arrears accrued by the time of his attaining the majority, petition can be filed within one year of the attaining of said majority. But, so long as the said minor : 3 : R.P.(F.C).No.466 OF 2009 does not attain the majority, for the enforcement of the order of maintenance, there can be no fetter of limitation prescribed under the 1st proviso to sub- section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C and the said provision has to be read down that the said limitation is only applicable to major maintenance holders and not minor maintenance holders”. 2. I fully agree with the view expressed by the learned judge and in the light of the fact that the petitioner still continue to be a minor on the date of filing of the application, the question of limitation does not arise for consideration and therefore the order passed by the family court does not call for any interference. Therefore, the revision lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : R.P.(F.C).No.466 OF 2009