1. Petitioner-husband has preferred these two separate revision petitions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. to challenge impugned orders of even date, i.e. on 07.12.2015, passed by Judge, Family Court, Churu.

2. In Criminal Revision Petition No. 130/2016, the order which was passed by learned Court below on respondent’s application under sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. for recovery of arrears of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 92,250/- the learned Court below has handed down sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment to the petitioner by taking shelter of Section 67 of the IPC. Likewise, in Criminal Revision No. 131/2016, learned Court below, upon consideration of identical application of the respondent under sub- section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. for recovery of maintenance of arrears to the tune of Rs. 20,250/- has handed down sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment to the petitioner yet again resorting to Section 67 IPC.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that, while passing the impugned order in both the revision petitions, learned Magistrate has seriously erred in construing sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel further submit