|
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Magistrate may impose consecutive periods of civil imprisonment exceeding one month in cases involving multiple defaults in payment of maintenance, reaffirming the continuing liability of a defaulter under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep Sharma on May 14 while dismissing a petition filed by Ram Lal, who had challenged trial court orders sentencing him to cumulative civil imprisonment of 70 days for non-payment of maintenance to his wife and minor daughters. The trial court had awarded separate consecutive sentences of 30 days, 15 days and 25 days corresponding to different periods of default in maintenance payments. The petitioner, a labourer, argued that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance could not exceed one month, irrespective of the number of defaults. He relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Shahada Khatoon vs. Amjad Ali to contend that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction. After examining various Supreme Court rulings, including Kuldip Kaur vs. Surinder Singh and Poongodi vs. Thangavel, the High Court observed that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a piece of social welfare legislation intended to protect neglected wives and children. The court held that imprisonment under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. serves as a mode of enforcement to compel payment and does not extinguish the liability to pay maintenance. It further clarified that maintenance is a recurring monthly obligation and a Magistrate is competent to award imprisonment of up to one month for each month of default. The court also observed that claimants are not required to file separate petitions for every missed monthly payment and may seek recovery of arrears through a consolidated application covering multiple months. "If there are arrears of more than one month, then the imprisonment exceeding the period of one month can be imposed," the court observed. Finding no illegality in the orders passed by the trial court, the High Court noted that the petitioner had failed to clear the arrears despite opportunities granted by the court and his earlier undertaking to make payment. The petition was accordingly dismissed, and the interim relief vacated. (ANI)
|
