Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a man’s petition challenging the recovery of ₹2.20 lakh in maintenance arrears claimed by his wife and minor daughter. The Court held that maintenance arrears covering a period of more than 12 months cannot be denied recovery merely because the amount relates to an earlier period, when the maintenance order was subsequently passed with retrospective effect.
Justice Farjand Ali ruled that where a court directs maintenance to be paid from a date preceding the order, the limitation period for recovering the arrears must be calculated from the date on which the amount becomes legally recoverable, rather than simply from the period for which maintenance has been awarded.
The Court upheld the lower court’s decision to initiate recovery proceedings, including the issuance of a warrant for attachment of the man’s agricultural land, and found no legal error warranting interference.
Wife and Daughter Seek Recovery of ₹2.20 Lakh
The case arose from Gharsana in Sri Ganganagar district, where Murti Devi and her minor daughter, Manisha, sought recovery of ₹2.20 lakh in unpaid interim maintenance from Het Ram.
The maintenance application was filed on August 5, 2020. On June 4, 2022, the court directed Het Ram to pay interim maintenance of ₹5,000 per month to his wife, with the payment to take effect retrospectively from the date the application was filed.
Consequently, the arrears covered the period from August 5, 2020, to June 4, 2022, amounting to approximately 22 months.
The wife and daughter subsequently approached the court for recovery of the unpaid amount.
Husband Challenges Recovery Citing 12-Month Limitation
Het Ram opposed the recovery application, arguing that Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) prescribed a 12-month limitation period for seeking recovery of unpaid maintenance.
According to him, arrears relating to a period exceeding 12 months could not be recovered under the provision.
However, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Gharsana rejected his objection on May 11, 2023. The court allowed the recovery application and directed the issuance of a warrant for attachment of Het Ram’s agricultural land to recover the outstanding amount.
Challenging this order, Het Ram approached the Rajasthan High Court.
Court Distinguishes Maintenance Period From Date of Recoverability
Justice Farjand Ali examined the limitation provision under Section 125(3) CrPC, which requires an application for recovery of maintenance arrears to be made within one year from the date the amount becomes due.
The High Court observed that the period for which maintenance is calculated and the date on which the amount becomes legally recoverable are distinct considerations.
In the present case, the maintenance order was passed on June 4, 2022, directing payment from August 5, 2020. Before the order was passed, the wife did not have that order as the basis for recovering the retrospectively awarded maintenance amount.
The Court held that although the arrears related to approximately 22 months, the amount awarded retrospectively became recoverable pursuant to the order dated June 4, 2022. Therefore, the recovery could not be barred merely because the period covered by the arrears exceeded 12 months.
Recovery Application Filed Within 23 Days
The High Court noted that the maintenance order was passed on June 4, 2022, and the recovery application was filed on June 27, 2022, just 23 days later.
Accordingly, the application was filed within the prescribed limitation period, calculated from the date the retrospectively awarded arrears became recoverable.
The Court rejected Het Ram’s argument that the age of the arrears, by itself, rendered the recovery application time-barred.
Limitation Applies Separately to Monthly Instalments
The High Court also clarified that maintenance instalments falling due after the maintenance order was passed stand on a different footing.
For monthly instalments becoming due under an existing maintenance order, the limitation period must be examined with reference to the date on which the respective amount became due.
Thus, where maintenance is awarded retrospectively, the entire arrears cannot be treated as time-barred solely because the period for which they were calculated exceeds 12 months. For subsequent unpaid instalments, the relevant due dates remain material in determining limitation.
High Court Dismisses Husband’s Petition
After examining the facts, dates and applicable legal provision, the Rajasthan High Court found that the recovery application filed on June 27, 2022, was within the limitation period in relation to the arrears awarded by the June 4, 2022 order.
Finding no legal error in the lower court’s decision, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed Het Ram’s petition. The Court also disposed of the stay petition and other pending applications.
Appearances: Advocate Sunil Dhaka appeared for Het Ram, Advocate Kuldeep Sharma represented the wife and daughter, and Deputy Government Advocate Vikram Rajpurohit appeared for the State.