HET RAM vs MURTI DEVI

Court
Rajasthan High Court

[2026:RJ-JD:51130]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3069/2023
CNR: RJHC010349162023 | URN: CRLMP / 6448U / 2023
Het Ram S/o Manphool Ram, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Nayak,
R/o 19 Ptd, Tehsil Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Murti Devi D/o Shri Dungar Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/
o 19 Ptd, Tehsil Raising Nagar District Sri Ganganagar, At
Present R/o Chak 21 A.s. , Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
2. Manisha D/o Shri Het Ram, Aged About 15 Years, Minor
Its Natural Guardian Mother Of Smt. Murti Devi D/o
Dungar Ram, W/o Shri Het Ram, Aged 40 Years, R/o 19
Ptd, Tehsil Raising Nagar District Sri Ganganagar, At
Present R/o Chak 21 A.s. , Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Dhaka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, DyGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 22/07/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 22/07/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/10/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 01:22:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 02:08:02 PM)

(2 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51130] [CRLMP-3069/2023]
petitioner assailing the legality and propriety of the order dated
11.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Case
No. 135/2020.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 1 and 2
filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. seeking recovery
of arrears of interim maintenance amounting to Rs. 2,20,000/-,
alleging non-payment by the petitioner. The petitioner opposed
the application on the ground that recovery could not be sought
for a period exceeding twelve months. However, vide order dated
11.05.2023, the learned court below allowed the application and
directed issuance of an attachment warrant in respect of the
petitioner’s agricultural land for recovery of the outstanding
amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred
the instant petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned order as well as the material available on record.
4. The controversy involved in the present petition revolves
around the interpretation of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., particularly the
expression “date on which the amount becomes due” occurring
therein. The proviso of Section 125(3) prescribes a period of
limitation of twelve months for seeking recovery of an amount due
under an order of maintenance, reckoned from the date on which
such amount becomes due.
4.1 In the present case, the application seeking maintenance
was instituted on 05.08.2020, whereas the learned Court below,
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 01:22:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 02:08:02 PM)

(3 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51130] [CRLMP-3069/2023]
vide order dated 04.06.2022, awarded interim maintenance of
Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent, with effect from
the date of filing of the application. The amount sought to be
recovered, therefore, includes the arrears calculated for the period
commencing from 05.08.2020 and ending on 04.06.2022.
4.2 The question which arises for consideration is whether the
aforesaid arrears can be treated as having become due on the
respective dates to which they relate or whether the enforceable
right to recover the consolidated amount accrued upon the
passing of the order dated 04.06.2022. In the considered opinion
of this Court, the distinction between the period for which
maintenance has been awarded and the point of time when the
amount became recoverable under the judicial direction assumes
significance.
4.3 Prior to the passing of the order dated 04.06.2022, the
respondent did not possess an enforceable order directing
payment of maintenance. It was only upon the passing of the said
order entitling the wife to recover maintenance, including the
arrears directed to be paid retrospectively from the date of the
application, crystallised. The direction to make payment from the
date of institution of the application determines the period for
which maintenance is payable; it does not, in the facts of the
present case, warrant treating the entire amount covered by the
order as having become recoverable even before the order itself
came into existence. In other words, it can be said that prior to
order dated 04.06.2022, the amount did not become due.
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 01:22:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 02:08:02 PM)

(4 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51130] [CRLMP-3069/2023]
4.4 Consequently, the arrears for the period from 05.08.2020 to
04.06.2022 became recoverable pursuant to the order dated
04.06.2022 and not before passing of the above order. The
application seeking recovery of the said amount was presented on
27.06.2022, i.e., within a period of less than one month from the
date on which the order was passed. The objection that the
recovery application pertaining to a period exceeding twelve
months, cannot be sustained merely on the ground that the
arrears were calculated for a period of approximately twenty-two
months. The statutory limitation is attracted with reference to the
date on which the amount became due and not merely by
reference to the length of the period for which maintenance has
been calculated. Here, in this case, the application for recovery
had been filed within limitation soon after amount became due.
4.5 However, the position in respect of the monthly instalments
falling due subsequent to the passing of the order dated
04.06.2022 stands on a different footing. Once the order came
into existence means a legitimate right to recovery; the
maintenance payable for each succeeding month became due in
accordance with its terms. If subsequent thereto any application is
filed seeking recovery of the outstanding amount that would
necessarily be governed by the limitation prescribed under Section
125(3) Cr.P.C., reckoned from the date on which the respective
amount became due.
5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that
the recovery application dated 27.06.2022, insofar as it relates to
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 01:22:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 02:08:02 PM)

(5 of 5)
[2026:RJ-JD:51130] [CRLMP-3069/2023]
the arrears covered by the order dated 04.06.2022, was
presented within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned
Court below has, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the
objection raised by the petitioner and proceeding with the
recovery of the said amount in accordance with law. No ground
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction is made out.
6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
7. Stay petition and all pending applications also stands
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_7 (1763)
S/383
Mamta Tak
(Uploaded on 16/10/2026 at 01:22:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/10/2026 at 02:08:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)