Husband detained month to month in execution of maintenance order sought quashing of the Family Court's commitment order. Noting the one-month limit on imprisonment under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the High Court directed the Family Court to decide his release application expeditiously and disposed of the Section 482 petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21252
Court No. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 32025 of 2024 Applicant :- Abbas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
CrPC. It is further submitted that the applicant can arrange money for payment of arrears of maintenance only after he is released from jail. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) xxxxxx
(2) xxxxx
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's [allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be,] [Substituted by Act 50 of 2001, Section 2 for "allowance" (w.e.f. 24-9-2001).] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made :
Provided that 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:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing."
provisions of section 125(3) CrPC and held as under:-
"The language of Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore, the only remedy would be after expiry of one month, for breach of non-compliance of the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach again to the Magistrate for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination the Magistrate can be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed."
Section 482 Cr.P.C., only order dated 22.08.2024 is being impugned and by that order the Family Court has sent the applicant to jail for a period of 30 days starting from 22.08.2024. As that period of imprisonment has already been expired, thus, the specific prayer sought by applicant cannot be granted. However, it was submitted that applicant / husband is still in jail as after expiry of imprisonment of one month period, he is again sent to fresh period of imprisonment of one month.
Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Anand
Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the husband could be repeatedly remanded to custody month to month under Section 128 Cr.P.C. without a fresh application by the wife under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shahada Khatoon and Others Vs. Amjad Ali and OthersRelied on¶10
J.T. 1999(10) SC 260 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Abbas
Opposite Party No. 2 (wife of applicant)
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
