J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is the father and the second respondent is the son. The first respondent is the former wife of the petitioner. The second respondent was born in their wedlock.
2. The respondents had filed an application as M.C.No.618/2013 against the petitioner for enhancement of the maintenance awarded to them in M.C.No.91/1999. As per Ext.P2 order dated 25.06.2014 in M.C.No.618/2013, the petitioner herein was directed to pay enhanced maintenance at the rate of Rs.4,500/- per month to the first respondent and at the rate of Rs.4,600/- per month to the second respondent from the date of that order.
3. The respondents filed an application as M.P (Exe) No.843/2019 under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal
3
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for execution of Ext.P2 order. The Family Court, Thrissur issued notice to the petitioner to appear in the aforesaid application.
4. It is stated that the petitioner appeared before the Family Court and made submissions to the effect that the maintenance claimed by the second respondent could not be realised in full, as part of such claim was not made within a period of one year. It is also stated that, the Family Court issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner and posted the application to 23.01.2020. It is further stated that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent on that day but the warrant of arrest was not recalled by the Family Court.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that he may be granted a period of three months to settle the maintenance amount claimed by the respondents by payment in lump.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
4
7. A plea is raised in this original petition filed before this Court that the second respondent has attained majority and the entire amount claimed by the respondents could not be realised from the petitioner because the application was filed not within the period of one year from the date on which the maintenance amount became due.
8. It is not stated in the petition what is the date on which the second respondent attained majority. The petitioner has produced no document to prove the date on which the second respondent attained majority.
9. Even assuming that the second respondent has now attained majority, if the application for execution of the order of maintenance was filed within a period of one year from the date of attaining majority, it is not barred under the first proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code.
10. Section 125(3) of the Code provides that, if any person ordered to pay maintenance, fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may take steps for levying the amount in the manner prescribed therein. The first
5
proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code states that, no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under Section
125 Cr.P.C., unless application is made to the court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due.
11. Liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) of the Code is a continuing liability. Section 125 of the Code is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and the children (See Shantha @ Ushadevi v. Shivananjappa : AIR
2005 SC 2410).
12. The first proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code creates no bar or it does not in any way affect the entitlement of a claimant to arrears of maintenance (See Poongodi v. Thangavel : AIR 2014 SC 24).
13. The general provision is that an execution petition for arrears of maintenance for a period beyond one year is neither maintainable nor enforceable under Section 125(3) of the Code. But, a minor is legally disabled to sue or be sued independently
6
during the period of his minority. According to Section 6 of the Limitation Act, where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of the decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased as would otherwise have been allowed. Thus, for making an application for execution of an order of maintenance, the minor gets the same period after the disability has ceased. Section 6 of the Limitation Act read with Section 29(2) of that Act would come to rescue him for claiming the entire arrears accrued by the time of his attaining majority and a petition can be filed within one year of attaining majority for that purpose (See Benny Varghese v. Siby P. Kuruvilla :
2013 (4) KHC 884 : 2014 (1) KLT 93).
14. Therefore, the entire amount of arrears of maintenance due to the second respondent could be claimed by him, if he has filed the application for execution within a period of one year from the date of attaining majority.
7
15. It is stated in this original petition that the petitioner appeared before the Family Court in response to the notice served on him and that he made objection to the maintainability of the application. No material is produced before this Court to find that the petitioner had appeared before the court and submitted any written objection to the application filed by the respondents.
16. It is also stated in this original petition that warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner by the Family Court. The petitioner has not produced copy of the order of the Family Court issuing warrant of arrest against him. There is also no material produced by the petitioner to prove that any warrant of arrest has been issued against him.
17. It is also stated in this original petition that the petitioner paid Rs.10,000/- to the respondents on 23.01.2020. No receipt or other document is produced before this Court to prove any such payment made by the petitioner.
18. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to grant any time to the petitioner to pay the amount of
8
maintenance due to the respondents. If at all the petitioner has got any objection to the application for execution filed by the respondents in the Family Court, he has to appear before that court and file objection before that court. If at all the petitioner wants time to make payment of arrears of maintenance due to the respondents, he has to approach the Family Court itself and make such prayer before that court.
Consequently, the original petition is dismissed. (sd/-)
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
9
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF MP(EXE) 843/2019 DATED
04.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC
NO.618/2013 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR DATED 25.06.2014.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED IN
MP(EXE.) 843/2019 DATED 30.07.2019. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE