Division bench of Apex Court held as follows:

It is true that the amount of maintenance became due by virtue of the Magistrate’s order passed on 20th January, 1993 and in order to seek recovery of the amount due by issuance of warrant, application shall be made within a period of one year from the date the amount became due. In the present case, the application, namely, Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 was filed well within one year. As no amount was paid even after the disposal of the matter by the High Court, the appellant filed IA No. 1 in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 wherein the arrears due up to that date were calculated and sought recovery of that amount under Section 125(3). Thus, IA No. 1 was filed even when Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 was pending and no action to issue warrant was taken in that proceeding. Crl. Misc. Petition No. 47 of 1993 which was filed within one year from the date the amount became due was kept alive and it was pending throughout. The purpose of filing IA on 16-6-1998 was only to mention the amount due up to date. The fact that the additional amount was specified in the IA does not mean that the application for execution of the order by issuing a warrant under Section 125(3) was a fresh application made for the first time. As already noticed, the main petition filed in the year 1993 was pending and kept alive and the filing of subsequent IA in 1998 was only to specify the exact amount which accrued due up to that date. Such application is only supplementary or incidental to the petition already filed in 1993 admittedly within the period of limitation. The fact that only a sum of Rs 5365 representing the arrears of eight months was mentioned therein does not curtail the scope of criminal miscellaneous petition filed in 1993 more so when no action was taken thereon and it remained pending.

8. We are, therefore, of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied and the High Court has erred in reversing the order of the Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing liability.

Note: The last line of para 8 (underlined) is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors.

Citations : [2005 SCC 4 468], [2005 SCC CRI 1089], [2005 AIR SC 2410], [2005 CRI LJ 2615], [2005 KANTLJ 4 208], [2005 CRIMES SC 2 225], [2005 AIR SC 0 2613], [2005 RCR CRI 2 796], [2005 AIOL 264], [2005 BOMCR CRI SC 2 548], [2005 CRLJ SC 2615], [2005 JT 5 347], [2005 SCALE 4 742], [2005 SCC 4 463], [2005 SCC CRI 1098], [2005 SCR 153], [2005 SUPREME 4 93], [2005 SCC CR 1098], [2005 SCJ 4 553], [2005 AD SC 5 319], [2005 BCR 2 548], [2005 MLJ CRI 1 665], [2005 SRJ 6 238], [2005 ALT CRI 2 282], [2005 CRLR 356], [2005 CALLJ 2 233], [2005 ALD CRI 1 370], [2005 CALCRILR 2 1], [2005 CCC 2 430], [2005 ALL MR CRI 179], [12005 DMC 2 1], [2005 JCRIC 2 753], [2005 SLT 4 292], [2005 CCR 2 231], [2005 MLJ CRL 1 665], [2005 AIR SCW 0 2613], [2005 AIR SCW 2613], [2005 CRIMES 2 225], [2005 CRLJ 2615], [2005 BCR CRI 2 548]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1928800/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae1ce4b0149711412fec