Under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defaulter may be sentenced to one month's imprisonment in respect of the arrears of maintenance of each month or a broken period, but he cannot be sentenced to imprisonment a second time for default in respect of the same identical arrears.

R.L. Khurana, J.—The above-noted two revision petitions are being disposed of together since they involve common questions and have arisen out of the same proceedings, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The facts giving rise to the above-noted two revision petitions, briefly, may be thus stated. Respondent, in Criminal Revision Petition No.3 of 1999, is the wife, while respondent in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4 of 1999 is the minor daughter of the petitioner. On a joint petition having been made by the two respondents under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, on 25.8.1993, awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/-, respectively, in favour of the wife and daughter of the petitioner with effect from the date of the petition, that is, 27.10.1992.

3. Since the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance amount to the two respondents in terms of the orders dated 25.8.1993, the two respondents approached the learned Magistrate under Section 125 (3), Code of Criminal Procedure to enforce the order of maintenance dated 25.8.1993. Two separate applications were made in this behalf on 14.5.1998.

4. In response to the notice issued to him, the petitioner put in appearance before the learned Magistrate on 3.7.1998. He was asked to file the reply to the applications made by the respondents on 5.8.1998. Since no reply was filed, the two applications were adjourned to 8.10.1998 to enable the petitioner to file the reply. On this adjourned date, neither the petitioner appeared nor any reply was filed on his behalf. The learned Magistrate, therefore, passed an order in the following terms:— "Respondent is not present. Hence, he proceeded against ex-parte. It appears that recovery cannot be effected except by way of warrant of arrest. Hence, NBW be issued against the respondent for 31.10.1998.”

5. It appears that no warrants of arrest were issued in pursuance of the order dated 8.10.1998 (quoted above). Therefore, on 31.10.1998, the learned Magistrate directed the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner returnable for 11.12.1998. On having been arrested, in pursuance of the warrants issued against him, the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 7.12.1998, when the following order was passed:— "Respondent has been produced in police custody in pursuance of the fresh NBW issued by the Court. The respondent has failed to pay even a single penny towards the payment of the arrears of maintenance. The respondent has not paid the maintenance to his minor daughter since 27.10.1992. It shows his conduct. Therefore, in order to enforce the order of maintenance it is required to send the respondent into civil imprisonment. Hence warrants of civil imprisonment for one month be prepared. However, the respondent is also directed to be produced in the court on 11.12.1998 on the fixed date." On 11.12.1998, the learned Magistrate, after observing that the payment has not been made, adjourned the case to 5.1.1999. The petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate on 5.1.1999 in custody, when the following order was passed:— "Since the respondent has not paid the maintenance amount, he is sent in civil imprisonment till 1.2.1999. Warrant be prepared accordingly. Case file be put up on 1.2.1999. Copy of the order be provided to the respondent without any costs." The above proceedings have been reproduced from case No. 19A/4 of 1998. (Priyanka v. Padam Sharma) instituted by the daughter of the petitioner for enforcement of the order of maintenance dated 25.8.1993. To the similar effect are the orders which were passed by the learned Magistrate in case No. 19/4 of 1998 (Vidya v. Padam Sharma) instituted by the wife of the petitioner for the enforcement of the above referred order of maintenance.

7. The petitioner has thus approached this Court by way of the present two revision petitions assailing the order dated 5.1.1999 of the