1989 Supreme(AP) 527
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.D.PATNAIK
Pokala Brahmaniah - Appellant
Versus
Pokala Padma - Respondent
Decided On : 11-29-89
The maximum period of imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. is 12 months.
Headnote:
MAINTENANCE - SECTION 125 CR. P. C. - PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (3) - INTERPRETATION - MAXIMUM PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT - 12 MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's wife and children filed two petitions for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate granted them maintenance of Rs. 200/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 275/- per month by the Sessions Judge. The petitioner failed to comply with the order, and the Magistrate ordered him to be sent to jail for 24 months. The petitioner challenged this order in revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the maximum period of imprisonment that can be awarded to the petitioner is 12 months, as per the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr. P. C. The court also held that the petition for execution of the maintenance order can be filed within one year from the date of the order in revision.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner can be imprisoned for more than 12 months for default in payment of maintenance? 2. Whether the petition for execution of the maintenance order can be filed within one year from the date of the order in revision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr. P. C. states 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. 2. The maximum period of imprisonment which can be awarded to the petitioner, can be 12 months.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to be recommitted to serve the remaining period of imprisonment in Crl. M. P. No. 785/85, which was limited to 12 months.
( 1 ) THE respondents who are the wife and children of the petitioner, have filed two petitions for maintenance u/s. 125 Cr. P. C. i. e. M. C. Nos. 7/84 and 4/85, in the Court of the II Additional Munaif Magistrate, Ongole, who by his order dated 24-2-1987, granted them maintenance @ Rs. 200/- per month. Not satisfied with that, they preferred a revision to the Sessions Judge, who enhanced the maintenance to list 275/- per month by his order dt. 13-4-1988. Then they have filed Crl. M. P. No. 785/89 in the Court of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate for enforcing the arrears of maintenance of Rs. 7,525/- by sending the petitioner to jail. The learned Magistrate ordered that the petitioner should be sent to jail for a period of 24 months. Against that, a revision was filed in Crl. Revision Petition No. 123/88 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, which was dismissed. As against that, this petition is filed.
( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the proviso to sub-s. (3) of S. 125 Cr. P. C. which reads as follows : -"s. 125 (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 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. "
( 3 ) HE contends that according to this proviso, no warrant shall be issued for recovery of any amount due under that Section, unless an application is made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. He further contends that the arrears of maintenance claimed in M. C. No. 7/84 are for a period of 24 months and in M. C. No. 4/ 85, the arrears claimed are for a period of 27 months; and so, since the claim is for more than one year, the petition is not maintainable. He referred to a decision in J. Srinivasa Rao v. J. Rajeswari, (1989) 2 APLJ 41 : (1990 Cri LJ 2506) in which a learned single Judge of this Court held that the maintenance holder cannot accumulate the maintenance for a period beyond 12 months and that no application for execution of the maintenance order can be entertained for a period exceeding 12 months immediately preceding the date of application.
( 4 ) BUT the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents (wife and children) is that as the order in the revision was passed on 13-4-1988 by which the order of maintenance became final, the petition for execution of the order of maintenance was filed on 11-5-1988, which is within the period of 12 months. He referred to the decision in Ataullah v. Maimunnissa Begum (1984) 3 APLJ 98 : (1984 Cri LJ 1522) in which another learned single Judge of this Court observed as follows : -"the matter became final only by virtue of the order passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge on 12-11-1982. In this view of the matter, the application viz. , Cr. M. P. No. 91/83 in M. C. No. 95/79 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adoni is within time. The learned counsel, however, submits that in the absence of any stay, nothing prevented the respondents from filing an application earlier. But for the purpose of limitation of one year, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the matter was pending by way of a revision and the order of maintenance became final only on the dismissal of the revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. "
( 5 ) IN that case, there were arrears of maintenance for 37 months and the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to underg