SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Ker) 156

Judges : G.B.PATTANAIK,M.B.SHAH
Shahada Khatoon - Appellant
Versus
Amjad Ali - Respondent
Case No : Crl.A. No. 83 of 1996
Decided On : 04/07/1999
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:--- For the Respondent:-----

The power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance under S.125 of Cr.P.C. is limited to a term of one month or until the payment, if sooner made.

Headnote:

Interpretation - S.125 of Cr.P.C. - Imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance

Fact of the Case:

The court considered whether the Magistrate can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made, under sub-s. (3) of S.125 of Cr.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the language of sub-s. (3) of S.125 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. The only remedy for breach or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate would be after expiry of one month.

Issues: Interpretation of sub-s. (3) of S.125 of Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance is limited to a term of one month or until the payment, if sooner made.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the court found no infirmity in the order passed by the High Court.

Judgment :-

1. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly interpreted sub-s. (3) of S.125 of Cr.P.C. by directing that the Magistrate can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the liability of the husband arising out of an order passed under S.125 to make payment of maintenance is a continuing one and on account of non-payment there has been a breach of the order and therefore the Magistrate would be entitled to impose sentence on such a person continuing him in custody until payment is made. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The language of sub-s. (3) of S.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 or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top