The proceeding for enforcement of the order under Section 128, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground that the same would be barred by limitation as provided under the proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code. It may, therefore, be deduced that the scope of Section 125(3) and 128 of the Code being different and the first proviso to Section 125(3) creating an interdict only on issuance of warrant for recovery under Section 125(3), the said period of limitation of one year cannot be held to create a fetter on the right to claim enforcement under Section 128.

One of the main issues that came up for the court’s consideration was whether the limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 125(3) doesn’t create any bar on claiming arrears of maintenance or it limit the entitlement.

Limitation of one year and section 128: “Section 125(3) of the code would have to be held to be confined to the section which precedes it.”  Section 128 of the Code provides for enforcement of the order of maintenance against the person against whom the order of maintenance has been made. The enforcement of the order of maintenance under Section 128 can only be made upon the liability being satisfied by making actual payment of the amount of maintenance, which is due. The entitlement to claim enforcement of the order of maintenance under Section 128 by seeking discharge of the liability as per terms of the order of maintenance granted under Section 125, therefore cannot be held to be extinguished in terms of the one year limitation prescribed under the first proviso to Section 125(3).

Your understanding is correct. An application for execution of maintenance  order is to be filed within one year from the  date on which  it becomes due. But pending application by respondent for cancellation/modification of maintenance  order, period of limitation will not start of run.  

You shall be required to pay the arrears of interim maintenance amount as awarded by court. By way of execution petition only last three years arrears court be recovered. 

The SC has held that the proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC has been construed by the High Court to be a fetter on the entitlement of the claimants to receive arrears of maintenance beyond a period of one year preceding the date of filing of the applicable under Section 125(3) CrPC. Having considered the said provision of the Code we do not find that the same creates a bar or in any way affects the entitlement of a claimant to arrears of maintenance. What the proviso contemplates is that the procedure for recovery maintenance under Section 125(3), namely, by construing the same to be a levy of a fine and the detention of the defaulter in custody would not be available to a claimant who had slept over his/her rights and has not approached the court within a period of one year commencing from the date on which the entitlement to receive maintenance has accrued. However, in such a situation the ordinary remedy to recover the amount of maintenance, namely, a civil action would still be available.

2) the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability.

- As per section (3) of Section 125 CrPC , no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due..

- Further, as per Shantha Versus. B.G. Shivnanjappa, (2005) 4 SCC 468, the Liability to pay maintenance is a continuing liability and filing successive applications u/s 125(3) CrPC cannot be insisted upon.

- Hence, legally she can claim the interim maintenance from the date of order for the maximum period of 3 years.

Limitation for execution of any order is 12 years 

Pay the pending amount from November 2016 

As per law, if your wife would file execution case, then, she would be able to recover only last three years arrears of maintenance. In case of execution application dated 08.03.2021, you should raise legal objection of being barred by limitation for arrears of maintenance before the period of 07.3.2018. 

If she has filed the petition seeking payment of interim maintenance amount immediately after the orders were passed,  you are required to pay the entire arrears amount from 2016 onwards.

If the collection petition was filed recently then that would pertain to one year prior to date of collection petition. 

- You can move an application for the dismissal of  the execution petition out of three years .

From the date of order or any date in order stated by the court as your payment date

Dear client,  

In cases of maintenance orders issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the limitation period for the recovery of arrears may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific laws applicable in your case. It's important to consult with a qualified lawyer who can provide you with accurate advice based on the laws and regulations in your jurisdiction.

In general, the limitation period for the recovery of arrears in maintenance cases is often longer than one year. The maintenance order itself does not become time-barred after one year, but rather the arrears may become subject to certain time limitations.

However, it's important to note that the specific facts and circumstances of your case, as well as the relevant laws and court decisions, can affect the application of the limitation period. Therefore, it is crucial to consult with a lawyer who can review the specific details of your case and provide you with accurate advice based on the applicable laws in your jurisdiction.

Additionally, it's important to comply with court orders and attend court hearings to present your defense and arguments regarding the ad interim maintenance order and any subsequent applications. Your lawyer can guide you on the appropriate legal steps to take in order to address the pending maintenance amount and present your defense effectively.

Please consult with a qualified lawyer to obtain precise advice based on the facts and circumstances of your case.