[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Chapala Sri Ramulu vs Chapala Ramya Sri @ Nagar Rani on 26 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.705 of 2025
DATE: 26.03.2026
BETWEEN:
Chapala Sri Ramulu
.....petitioner
And
Chapala Ramya Sri @ Nagar Rani and another
.....Respondents
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the
order dated 06.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 in
M.C.No.4 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Alair.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-
husband filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging
SKS,J
Crl.R.C.No.705 of 2025
the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Alair in Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 in
M.C. No.4 of 2015. Originally, the petitioner-wife filed
M.C.No.4 of 2015 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and by order
dated 29.07.2016, the trial Court granted maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- per month in her favour from the date of the order.
Alleging that the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance, the
respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 under Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C. seeking recovery of arrears of Rs.51,000/- for the
period from 29.07.2018 to 28.12.2019. The petitioner
opposed the petition contending that the claim was barred by
limitation. After hearing both sides, the trial Court held that
arrears could be claimed only within one year prior to filing of
the petition and accordingly partly allowed the petition,
directing the respondent to pay Rs.36,000/- towards arrears
of maintenance for the period from 01.01.2019 to 28.12.2019,
with a default sentence of one month simple imprisonment,
which order is assailed in the present revision.
3. Heard Sri Praveen Kumar Dubey, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M.
Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
SKS,J
appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - State. Though
notice served upon respondent No.1, none appeared on her
behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous, contrary
to law and the material on record and that the petition filed by
the respondent-wife under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery
of arrears of maintenance was barred by limitation, as the
same was filed on 10.01.2020 seeking arrears for the period
from 29.07.2018 to 28.12.2019, which is beyond the period of
one year prescribed under law. He further submitted that the
trial Court failed to properly consider the objection raised by
the petitioner regarding limitation. He contended that the
respondent has already remarried and the petitioner has
obtained evidence to that effect and has initiated appropriate
proceedings under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking alteration of
the maintenance order, which are pending consideration and
that the parties are no longer husband and wife, as the
petitioner has also obtained a decree of divorce in
F.C.O.P.No.1109 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, and
therefore the respondent is not entitled to claim maintenance.
SKS,J
Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the
trial Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is legal and
well-reasoned and does not warrant any interference by this
Court. He further submitted that the trial Court, after
considering the material available on record, rightly held that
the respondent-wife is entitled to recover arrears of
maintenance only for the period falling within one year prior
to the filing of the petition as contemplated under Section
125(3) Cr.P.C., and accordingly restricted the claim and
granted arrears only for the period from 01.01.2019 to
28.12.2019. He contended that the maintenance order dated
29.07.2016 passed in M.C.No.4 of 2015 has attained finality
and the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the said
order. Therefore, the trial Court rightly directed the petitioner
to pay the arrears of maintenance and there is no illegality or
perversity in the impugned order. Hence, he prayed the Court
to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case.
6. In the light of the submissions made by both the
learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on
SKS,J
record, the point that arises for consideration is whether the
order of the trial Court directing the petitioner to pay arrears
of maintenance is barred by limitation under Section 125(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per the said provision, an
application for recovery of arrears of maintenance has to be
filed within one year from the date on which the amount
becomes due. In the present case, the respondent-wife filed
the petition on 10.01.2020 seeking recovery of arrears. The
trial Court, after considering the said limitation, restricted the
claim and granted arrears only for the period from 01.01.2019
to 28.12.2019, which falls within one year preceding the date
of filing of the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly
applied the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. while partly
allowing the petition. It is also pertinent to note that the
provisions under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial in nature,
enacted to provide social justice and to prevent destitution of
a wife and children. In such circumstances, this Court does
not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order
passed by the trial Court warranting interference in revision.
Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the Criminal
Revision Case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
SKS,J
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
confirming the order dated 06.08.2025 passed in
Crl.M.P.No.553 of 2020 in M.C.No.4 of 2015 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alair.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 26.03.2026
SAI
