https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279398 The first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC limits only the coercive remedy for recovery of maintenance, not the underlying substantive right to receive maintenance. Where the claimant does not move the court within one year from accrual, recovery by treating the amount as a fine and by custody under that provision is restricted, but the liability itself survives and ordinary civil recovery remains available. Because maintenance is a continuing obligation, successive applications may be filed for later defaults. On this construction, the High Court's limitation approach was incorrect, and recovery of the full arrears from the original date of entitlement was maintained. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Mar 2019 15:54:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279398 The first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC limits only the coercive remedy for recovery of maintenance, not the underlying substantive right to receive maintenance. Where the claimant does not move the court within one year from accrual, recovery by treating the amount as a fine and by custody under that provision is restricted, but the liability itself survives and ordinary civil recovery remains available. Because maintenance is a continuing obligation, successive applications may be filed for later defaults. On this construction, the High Court's limitation approach was incorrect, and recovery of the full arrears from the original date of entitlement was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279398