1 2025:CGHC:42399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1029 of 2025 Ramlal Yadav S/o Kishun Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o- Railway Station Bye-Pass Road, Imli Dubbu Korba, P.S Kotwali Korba, District Korba (C.G) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Anusuiya (Annu) Yadav W/o Ramlal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Railway Station Bye Pass Road, Imli Dubbu, Korba, Present Address- Sarkho, Chowki Naila, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ku Naina Yadav D/o Ramlal Yadav Aged About 8 Years Through Her Mother Smt Anusuiya Yadav R/o Railway Station Bye Pass Road, Imli Dubbu, Korba, Present Address- Sarkho, Chowki Naila, Tehsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.08.2025 1. The present revision has been filed by the applicant (husband) being aggrieved by the order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the learned Family Court in Misc. Criminal Case No.47/18, whereby the Family Court rejected the objection of the applicant regarding the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 maintainability of the recovery application filed under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that in Misc. Criminal Case No. 47/18, vide order dated 08.09.2018, the respondent (wife) was granted maintenance of ₹1,000/- per month and minor daughter Naina was also granted maintenance of ₹400/- per month, totaling ₹1,800/- per month. The applicant failed to pay the maintenance regularly, resulting in arrears of ₹1,17,000/- for 65 months from September 2019 till the date of application. 3. The applicant raised an objection that in view of the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., only arrears of 12 months can be recovered, hence the said application for recovery of 65 months’ arrears is not maintainable. 4. The learned Family Court rejected the objection raised by the applicant (husband) on the basis of objection raised by the wife (respondent No.1 herein) holding that the said application was in continuation of earlier proceedings i.e. Misc. Criminal Case No. 254/22, in which ₹72,000/- had been paid by the applicant (husband) and the case was closed on 25.09.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Family Court has failed to appreciate the proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC which clearly restricts recovery of maintenance to a period of only 12 months prior to filing of the recovery application. The application filed by the non-applicant/wife is for recovery of 65 months' arrears, which is ex-facie barred under law and hence not maintainable. The applicant has already paid the entire recoverable amount (for 12 3 months) prior to the filing date of the recovery application (29/02/2024), and thus, no arrears legally exist as on the date of filing. The Family Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in rejecting the preliminary objection of the applicant without considering the limitation imposed by law and the non- applicant/wife is earning through her own shop and has sufÏcient independent income, but the Court has not considered this relevant aspect. The applicant is a below poverty line worker, has no permanent income of source and is entirely dependent on others' cattle for his livelihood, yet the Family Court ignored this hardship. In support of his contention he placed, reliance on the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in the application under Section 482 No.-20081 of 2021 (Lav Kumar Vs. State of U.P.) decided on 13.05.2022. Accordingly, the impugned unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. The proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. indeed provides that no warrant shall be issued for recovery of any amount due under this section unless the application is made within a period of one year 4 from the date on which the amount became due. However, the interpretation of this provision has been settled by various judicial pronouncements, holding that where continuous default occurs, subsequent applications can be filed for recovery of arrears beyond one year, provided proceedings remain in continuation and prior claims were addressed. 9. In the present case, it is undisputed that the non-applicant (wife) had previously filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 254/2022 for recovery, in which the applicant made payment of ₹72,000/- and thereafter, the said case was closed on 25.09.2024. The current application was filed on 29.02.2024, i.e., during the pendency of earlier proceedings. Hence, this cannot be termed as a fresh proceeding after long delay but is a continuation of the previous recovery action. 10. Reliance placed by the learned Family Court on Shantha, Ushadevi Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa, 2005 C.J. (KAR 589) is correct, wherein it was held that the bar under the proviso of Section 125(3) applies to filing a new application after an inordinate delay, not to a continuing process for recovery when proceedings are kept alive. Therefore, the objection raised by the applicant is untenable in law. 11. The applicant has admittedly defaulted in complying with the maintenance order dated 08.09.2018, which has attained finality. Instead of discharging the legal obligation towards his wife and daughter, the applicant has chosen to raise technical objections, which cannot be countenanced in law when the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to prevent destitution and ensure sustenance. 5 12. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no illegality, impropriety, or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. The revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 13. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal