Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 120

 Summary

The petitioner challenged the grant of past maintenance beyond six years, arguing that it is barred under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

The Court held that:

• Although generally limitation restricts recovery of past maintenance, the facts of this case create an exception.
• The petitioner himself admitted in his written statement that the wife remained unmaintained since 2012 and also sought restitution of conjugal rights.
• By seeking restitution, he:
  • Acknowledged subsistence of marriage, and
  • Impliedly admitted wife’s entitlement to maintenance.
• This triggered the doctrine of estoppel, preventing him from denying maintenance or invoking limitation.
• In such converging claims (maintenance + dissolution + restitution), the Court can grant maintenance beyond six years.
• The cited Supreme Court judgments were held distinguishable on facts.

 Result: Petition dismissed; maintenance for 12 years upheld.