1. The Applicant is the husband, who is directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). He made several defaults. His wife was constrained to file several Execution Applications in the Family Court since, under the first proviso to Section 125, each Execution Application had to be made within a period of one year. The wife was constrained to file several Execution Applications for periods of 12 months or less each. Four such Execution Applications came to be disposed of under the impugned order of the Family Court No.4, Mumbai, on 18.7.2009. Under each of those Applications, the Applicant herein was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for the number of months that the maintenance amount was left in arrears. Consequently, in ER No.180 of 2006, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 months or until payment of Rs.10,500/-, whichever was earlier. In ER No.179 of 2007, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 11 months or until the payment of Rs.11,000/, whichever was earlier. In ER No.219 of 2008, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 11 months or until the payment of Rs.11,000/-, whichever was earlier. In ER No.245 of 2009, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 12 months or until the payment of Rs.17,500/-, whichever was earlier (which was the enhanced amount of maintenance of Rs.1,500/-per month). Further the Respondent was directed to suffer the sentence imposed under each of the succeeding Applications after completion of his sentence for each of those earlier Applications.

2. The Application as well as the order exemplify and bring out the stark reality of the agony the wives are required to undergo at the hands of the husbands who disobey orders of maintenance with impunity. It further shows the delay that is caused in our justice system for granting the wife her due after her Application has been filed in the Family Court. The Applications of the years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 at-last came to be disposed of on 18.7.2009. The husband has been a consistent, persistent, consummate and inveterate defaulter. The order shows that no part of the maintenance amount came to be paid. The order further reflects that the maintenance amount came to be enhanced in or about 2009, but even initial amount of maintenance was not paid.

3. Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code sets out the consequences of failure of payment of the amount of maintenance ordered under Section 125(3) of the Cr. P.C. It runs thus:-

“(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, 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. The sub-section gives the remedy “for every breach of the Order”. Under that subsection the wife in favour of whom the order of the maintenance is passed would be entitled to take out an Execution Application as soon as a default of the payment of any maintenance for any month is made. For a single default in a single month constituting a breach of the order, the order of sentence can be passed. That order of sentence is for a term which may extend to one month or until payment is made, whichever is sooner. Since under the first proviso to that section the Application is required to be made within a period of one year from the date on which the amount to be recovered fell due, the wife is able to make one consolidated Application for a period of one year. Since usually the maintenance amount is payable m