- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Laxmi And Ors. v. Nakka Narayan Goud And Anr.
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
Four minor children (two male and two female), represented by their mother, are the petitioners. Their father is the 1st respondent. The mother, on her own behalf and as guardian of the minors, initiated maintenance proceedings in M.C. No. 9 of 1985 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar alleging neglect by the 1st respondent. The Magistrate granted maintenance in favour of the wife and the minor children. On revision by the father, the Court of Sessions set aside the maintenance order in favour of the wife but sustained the maintenance order in favour of the children (order dated 26-2-1990).
The petitioners then filed Criminal M.P. No. 288/90 claiming arrears of Rs. 10,800 (for 54 months) and sought distress warrants; warrants were issued on 22-10-1990. The 1st respondent challenged issuance of the warrants by revision to the Court of Sessions, which dismissed the revision and confirmed the warrants. While those warrants were pending, the petitioners filed Cri. M.P. No. 571/91 dated 17-12-1991 seeking recovery of arrears of Rs. 2,400 (for 10-12-1990 to 10-12-1991); warrants were again issued but returned for want of attachable property. Cri. M.P. No. 288/90 was dismissed with an endorsement that the sums claimed would be clubbed with Cri. M.P. No. 571/91 for composite action.
When enforcement was pursued for recovery of Rs. 13,200 in aggregate, the 1st respondent filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 10 of 1992 before the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar, contending that most of the arrears claimed in Cri. M.P. No. 571/91 were for periods beyond one year from the date they became due and therefore time-barred under the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge allowed the revision by order dated 29-6-1992, setting aside the enforcement order of the Magistrate in Cri. M.P. No. 571/91. That order prompted this Criminal Revision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the one-year limitation in the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. (which bars issuance of a warrant for recovery unless application to levy is made within one year from the date the amount became due) applies to enforcement applications made on behalf of minors to recover maintenance arrears awarded in their favour.
- Whether enforcement proceedings filed on behalf of minors beyond one year of accrual of arrears are time-barred by that proviso or whether the legal disability of minority under the Limitation Act suspends or excludes the operation of that limitation.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The order passed by the Court of Magistrate (issuing warrants and directing enforcement) is valid and sound and there were no grounds to reverse it by the Court of Sessions.
1st Respondent's Arguments
- The enforcement application was filed beyond the one-year period stipulated in the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C.; therefore it is time-barred.
- The dismissal of Criminal M.P. No. 288/90, according to the 1st respondent, does not preserve or save the limitation and, in his submission, the dismissal extinguished the right to enforce amounts beyond one year.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Nand Lal v. Kanhaiya Lal | Support for the proposition that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and related proceedings are civil in nature. | The Court relied on this authority to treat Section 125 proceedings as civil and to support the proposition that a petition under Section 125 is to be received and proceeded with (not summarily dismissed as a complaint). |
| Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh | Support for the classification of Section 125 proceedings as civil in nature (cited alongside Nand Lal). | The Court invoked this authority as confirming that Chapter IX Cr.P.C. proceedings are civil in character and thereby relevant to limitations analysis. |
| Chitti Prasada Rao v. Chitti Asiripolamma, 1993 (1) ALT 22 NRC | Procedural principle that maintenance cases should be disposed of within six months and, except when interrupted by a stay of a superior court, not exceed one year. | The Court cited its prior decision to emphasize the objective of speedy disposal under Section 125 and to criticize protracted enforcement procedures that frustrate quick relief. |
| Smt. Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh | Support for the view that imprisonment for default and simultaneous proceedings against property are permissible enforcement measures. | The Court relied on this Supreme Court judgment to justify the approach of issuing warrants of arrest and pursuing property for realization of maintenance concurrently, as appropriate enforcement tools. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court proceeded in a stepwise legal analysis, relying solely on the text of the opinion:
- Character of Chapter IX proceedings: The court emphasized that the provisions dealing with maintenance (Sections 125–128 Cr.P.C.) form a self-contained code (Chapter IX) addressing initiation, procedure, variation, cancellation, and enforcement of maintenance orders. These proceedings are civil in nature (supported by authorities cited in the opinion), and a petition under Section 125 is to be received by the magistrate who must issue process; the magistrate has no power to dismiss the application in limine as if it were a criminal complaint.
- Applicability of Limitation Act provisions: The court identified two provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 relevant to the issue — Section 3 (general application of the Limitation Act) and Section 6 (legal disability — minors, lunatics, etc.). The court held that while Section 3 of the Limitation Act makes the one-year bar under the 1st proviso applicable to major-maintenance holders (like wife or parents), Section 6 affords legally disabled persons (including minors) the benefit of suspension of limitation.
- Permissibility of applying Section 6 to Chapter IX matters: The court reasoned that Section 6 is applicable because Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act does not exclude application of Section 6 to Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.; therefore the legal disability provisions operate unless expressly excluded. The court thus concluded that the limitation enumerated in the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied to minors.
- Effect of minority and subsequent majority: The court explained that as long as the person remains a minor, the one-year limitation in the 1st proviso does not fetter enforcement of a maintenance order in their favour. If the minor subsequently attains majority and is not mentally or physically disabled, the maintenance order in their favour "automatically disappears" as to future maintenance (per the court's statement), but arrears accrued during minority may be enforced by a petition filed within one year from attaining majority.
- Practical enforcement policy and critique of procedure used: The court criticized the Magistrate's cumbersome preference for property attachment that delayed enforcement and frustrated the remedial objective of Section 125. Emphasizing speed, the court reiterated its prior view that maintenance cases should be disposed of quickly. For enforcement, the court endorsed prescribing payment schedules and, upon default, issuing warrants of arrest and committing the defaulting party to imprisonment until amounts are paid — while noting imprisonment does not discharge the obligation and does not bar simultaneous proceedings against property. This approach was said to be supported by the Supreme Court decision cited.
- Application to the present facts: Applying the foregoing principles, the court concluded that the enforcement applications made on behalf of the minors were not time-barred by the one-year proviso and that the Sessions Court erred in allowing the revision that set aside the Magistrate's enforcement order.
Holding and Implications
Core Ruling: The Criminal Revision is allowed: the order of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Crl. R.P. No. 10 of 1992 is set aside and the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar in Crl. M.P. No. 571/91 in M.C. No. 9 of 1985 is restored.
Direct consequences and orders for the parties (as expressly directed in the opinion):
- The 1st respondent (father) is directed to pay the arrears up to October 1993 within one month from the date of the order.
- The 1st respondent is directed to continue paying the maintenance amount awarded to the petitioners regularly by the 15th of each English calendar month, the first payment to commence on 15th November 1993 and to continue thereafter on the same date each month.
- If there is default in payment of either the arrears or future maintenance within the time stipulated, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar is to issue a warrant of arrest against the 1st respondent and commit him to imprisonment until the due amount(s) is/are paid.
- The Criminal Revision Case is expressly allowed and the revision is allowed (final line of the opinion).
Broader implication articulated by the court (limited to the text of the opinion): the one-year limitation in the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to minors because of the operation of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (legal disability), read with Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The court read the proviso down so that the limitation applies to major-maintenance holders but not to minor-maintenance holders.
The opinion did not purport to set aside or overrule any specific higher-court precedent; it applied statutory interpretation and cited existing case law and earlier decisions to support its reasoning and orders.
1. This Criminal Revision rather poses an important question as to whether the limitation of one year under the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. is applicable to the minors for enforcing the order of maintenance passed in their favour.
2. Four minor children, two male and two female, represented by their mother are the petitioners herein. The 1st respondent is their father. On the ground that the 1st respondent neglected the wife and the children, the wife on her behalf and also as a guardian of the minor children initiated proceedings in M.C. No. 9 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar for the grant of maintenance to her and her minor children. The order of maintenance sought for was granted but on revision by the 1st respondent to the Court of Sessions, the latter while setting aside the maintenance order in favour of the wife, sustained the order of maintenance granted in favour of the petitioners. The order of the Court of Sessions is dated 26-2-1990. The petitioners filed Criminal M.P. No. 288/90 claiming arrears of Rs. 10,800/- for 54 months and seeking issuance of distress warrants for the recovery of the said amounts and on 22-10-1990, such warrants were issued. The issuance of such warrants was challenged by the 1st respondent by filing a revision in the Court of Sessions, but the said Court dismissed the same, thus, confirming the distress warrants. During the pendency of the distress warrants, another petition was filed on behalf of the petitioners in Cri. M.P. No. 571/91, dated 17-12-1991 for recovery of arrears of Rs. 2,400/- for the period from 10-12-1990 to 10-12-1991 and the Court of Magistrate has again issued warrants for realisation of the said amount. As the warrants were returned on the ground that no properties were available, Cri. M.P. No. 288/90 was dismissed with endorsement that the sum claimed in the said petition is clubbed with Cri. M.P. No. 571/91, for composite action. When the order was to be enforced for realisation of Rs. 13,200/- the 1st respondent has filed a revision before the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar contending that the claim for maintenance was time-barred as most of the amount claimed was for the period beyond one year as on the date of the filing of the Criminal M.P. No. 571/91. The said contention found favour with the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Criminal R.P. 10 of 1992 and by order dated 29-6-1992, the revision was allowed setting aside the order of enforcement passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar in Criminal M.P. No. 571/91 which provoked the petitioners to file this revision.
3. The 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. pleaded on behalf of the 1st respondent reads :
"Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this Section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due."
Mr. C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order passed by the Court of Magistrate is valid and sound and that there were no grounds to reverse the same by the Court of Sessions. Mr. K. Mahipathi Rao, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contends to the contra. His contention is that as the pending application for enforcement was filed admittedly beyond the period of one year, the same is time-barred and the dismissal of Criminal M.P. No. 288/90 will not save the limitation and on the other hand has extinguished the right.
4. This is not a case dealing with enforcement of a major-maintenance holders like wife, father or mother. This enforcement claim pertains to the minor-children. May be, the minor children are represented by their next friend and guardian i.e. their mother, who is the wife of the 1st respondent. But, that makes no difference as even though the application is made by a mother on behalf of her children, essentially it is the application filed by the minors and pertains to their entitlement of realisation of the maintenance order passed in their favour. The pertinent question is as to whether this limitation of one year specified under the 1st proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. can be applicable at all to minors' application for enforcement. In my considered view, the answer is 'NO' and my reasons therefor are mentioned infra.
5. The matters relating to the right of initiation of the proceedings for maintenance (Section 125 Cr.P.C.), procedure to be followed touching upon the institution including the place thereof and the enquiry (Section 126 Cr.P.C.), variation or cancellation of the order (Section 127 Cr.P.C. and the enforcement of the maintenance order (Section 128 Cr.P.C.) make it abundantly clear that the matters relating to maintenance and further proceedings embodied specially and providing them separately under Chapter IX Cr.P.C. are self contained one, unrelated to other provisions of Cr.P.C. A petition or an application, by whatever name it is called, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not a complaint and once such a petition is filed, there is no option for the Court of Magistrate excepting to receive the same and issue process to the respondent. There is no right for the Magistrate to dismiss the application in limine. In fact, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the related proceedings are civil in nature. This has been so held by the Supreme Court in Nand Lal V. Kanhaiya Lal, and Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, . Even though one year's period for initiation 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, 1963. Section 6 dealing with legal disability is applicable in view of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1963 as the application of Section 6 thereof is not specially excluded under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code. The minors are not sui juries and the mere fact that they can be represented by mother, father of other guardians is of no consequence. Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 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 and if the said person after attaining of 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 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.
6. Here again I have to comment regarding the action of the Court of Magistrate in adopting cumbersome procedure of seeking to attach the properties of the 1st respondent and thus, delaying the order of enforcement which frustrates the very object of speedier remedy contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the object and intendment of Section 125 Cr.P.C. I have held in Chitti Prasada Rao v. Chitti Asiripolamma, 1993 (1) ALT 22 NRC that a maintenance case shall be disposed of within a period of six months and in no even the said period shall exceed one year unless interrupted by a stay of superior court. If the enforcement petition is kept pending for a longer time, the fruits of the maintenance order will get delayed unduly thereby depriving the deponents-derelicts from getting their basic needs of food, clothing shelter etc. Act such, the proper method to enforce the maintenance order is by way of prescribing time for payment for arrears and for future payments and if there is a default, to issue a warrant of arrest and order imprisonment against the person suffering the order of maintenance, till the amount of maintenance is paid. Again, this is a method for prompt and expeditious payment of the amount of maintenance and merely because a person is in imprisonment, the same does not amount to discharge or satisfaction of the amount of maintenance. The person sufferring maintenance is liable to be imprisoned so long as the amount/s remains unpaid. As such, there is no bar to commit a person defaulting in payment of maintenance amount/s to imprisonment and also simultaneously to proceed against his properties, be it movable or immovable, for realisation of the maintenance amount/s. this approach of mine is fully supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Smt. Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh, .
7. In view of what is stated supra, I set aside the order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in Crl. R.P. No. 10 of 1992 and restore the order passed by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar in Crl. M.P. No. 571/91 in M.C. No. 9 of 1985. The 1st respondent shall pay the arrears upto October, 1993, within a period of one month from to-day and shall continue to pay the amounts of maintenance awarded to the petitioners regularly by 15th of each English calendar month, the first commencing on 15th November, 1993, and then so on. If there is a default either in payment of the arrears or future maintenance amounts within the time stipulated above, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Shadnagar shall issue a warrant of arrest of the 1st respondent and commit him to imprisonment till the said amount/s is/are paid.
8. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
9. Revision allowed.
Alert