The Rajasthan High Court has held that the date for calculating the limitation period of 12 months prescribed under proviso to Section125(3) CrPC, is the one on which the order awarding maintenance is passed and not the date from which such maintenance is calculated.

Proviso to Section 125(3), CrPC, prescribed a period of limitation of 12 months for seeking recovery of the amount due under an order of maintenance, from the date on which such amount became due.

While interpreting the expression, “date on which the amount becomes due”, the bench of Justice Farjand Ali observed that there was a difference between the period for which maintenance was awarded and the point of time when the amount became recoverable under the judicial direction.

“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.”

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Trial Court that allowed an application filed by the respondent seeking recovery of arrears of interim maintenance from the petitioner, and issued an attachment warrant against petitioner's agricultural land.

For context, an interim maintenance order was passed against the petitioner in June 2022, wherein the maintenance had to be calculated from the date of filing of application by the respondent which was in August 2020.

In relation to this award, the respondent filed an application seeking recovery, in June 2022, which was allowed by the trial court, thereby passing the challenged order. Against this order, the petition was filed by the petitioner, arguing that the said application was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed in Section 125(3), CrPC, since the maintenance became due since 2020.

After hearing the contentions, the Court did not agree with the argument of the petitioner and observed that prior to passing of the award in June 2022, the maintenance did not become due, since the respondent had no enforceable right to seek recovery of the same. Hence, the maintenance became due only in June 2022, and not in 2020.

At the same time, the Court observed,

“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.”

Accordingly, the order passed by the trial court was upheld, and the petition was dismissed.