Does the decision in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali (2000 (1) KLT 696 (SC) fetter the powers of the Magistrate/Family court to sentence a defaulter to one month’s imprisonment for the default in payment of each month’s maintenance? Is there a cap of one month on the total period of imprisonment which can be imposed when complaint is raised in one Execution Petition about default in respect of more than one month? These are the questions of interest that arise for consideration in this revision petition.

2. A look at the statutory provisions first. Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. a father/husband/child having sufficient means, who refuses or neglects to maintain his child/wife/parent unable to maintain himself or herself, can be visited with an order directing payment of maintenance for each month. If he commits default in making such payment, such order passed by the criminal court can be enforced under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. by a sentence of imprisonment. I extract below Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.

S.125 Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents:

XX XX XX

(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:

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:

(emphasis supplied)

3. A plaint reading of the above statutory provision makes it clear that for the breach of the obligation to pay whole or any part of each month’s, maintenance, such defaulter can be sentenced to imprisonment for one month. Of course, he shall be released if payment is sooner made. Such application for execution of the order directing payment of maintenance has to be made within one year.

4. A reading of the statutory provision can thus leave behind no doubt that if there is a breach committed of the obligation to pay maintenance for a period exceeding one month, for default for each month, the defaulter can be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of one month. In short, if there is default for ‘n’ number of months imprisonment for ‘n’ number of months can, in the maximum, be imposed, of course, subject to the condition that ‘n’ cannot exceed 12.

5. The counsel argues that the Supreme Court in Shahada’s case (supra) has laid down the proportion that whatever be the number of months of default, a defaulter can be sentenced to imprisonment only for one month if such complaint about breach in respect of plurality of months is made in one execution petition.

6. On the face of it the contention appears to me to the illogical, irrational and unreasonable. The statutory provisions under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. make it very clear that one month’s imprisonment is the maximum imprisonment for each month’s default. If that be so, merely because the destitute lady/child/parent has come to the Court to complain about default in respect of the amount due for more months than one, the defaulter cannot obviously claim immunity or any advantage.

7. The policy of law cannot be to compel such claimants to come to Court with separate petitions for each month’s default. That would be a totally unreasonable manner of approaching the question. I requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to take the through the judgment in Shahada Khatoon in detail to find out whether any such proposition emerges from the decision of the Supreme Court. It is a very short judgment. I extract the entire judgment below:

“The short quest