The court can impose imprisonment for a period longer than one month based on the accumulation of arrears and pendency of the petition.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- This Revision has been filed under section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records and to set aside the order, dated 26/05/2022 passed in the petition in Cr.M.P No.3908 of 2019 in MC No.56 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai.)

This revision has been filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 26/05/2022 passed in the petition in Cr.M.P No.3908 of 2019 in MC No.56 of 2014 by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai.

2. The facts in brief:-

It is a matrimonial issue, over which the respondents initiated MC No.56 of 2014 seeking maintenance. That was ordered by the trial court, on 02/09/2019 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the respondents 1 and 2 from the date of petition. Against which, revision was preferred and that was dismissed by the revisional court, on 11/03/2021 confirming the quantum. To execute the order, the respondents filed Cr.MP No.3908 of 2019 stating that 54 months arrear is due and the total amount to be paid is Rs.10,80,000/- and that was filed, on 03/04/2019. The trial court passed the order, on 26/05/2022 directing the petitioners to undergo 15 months simple imprisonment or until the payment of arrears of maintenance amount. That was ordered , on 26/05/2022. Against which, this criminal revision has been preferred mainly not only on the ground of limitation, but also with regard to the period of punishment.

3. Heard both sides.

4. An elaborate argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner not only on the factual issue, but also on legal issue.

5. After hearing the parties, I made a suggestion to settle the issue. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the respondents readily accepted the same, but a rider has been made by him to the effect that let the petitioner be directed to pay the balance arrears of maintenance. According to him, more than Rs.16,00,000/- is now due. As per the order of this court, a portion of the amount Rs.3,00,000/- was also paid towards part of the arrears amount.

6. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire family has been spoiled by one person. But it appears that the petitioner is not accepted, the suggestion of this court. There is some sort of grudge against the respondents. So that can be sorted out, if the parties sit together in the mediation process. Now whatever it may be, the matter can be disposed of on merits.

7. With regard to the first contention that the respondents can file execution petition only for one year is also out of place and cannot be accepted for the simple reason that even though, the Maintenance Case was filed in 2014, final order was passed, on 02/02/2019 directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance from the date of the petition. On the date of the disposal, 52 months arrears has to be paid. Cr.M.P No.3908 of 2019 has been filed within time. So the time cannot be calculated from the date of the original petition. The time limitation of 12 months will start running only from the date of order and not from the date of the petition I.e., the original petition was filed. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the long delay in disposing the Maintenance Case for the purpose of argument that the respondents are entitled for arrears only for 12 months. This amount became due only on the date of the order namely 02/02/2019. So the first ground of limitation of 12 months is not acceptable. Subsequent period of 12 months can be taken and not for the original period.

8. The next ground is that even though single petition has been filed, the Magistrate can impose the imprisonment only for a period of one month or until the payment, if sooner made. Much argument was advanced on this point. He has also cited very many judgments.

9. No doubt that at one point of time, there was an opinion that even if a single petition is filed under section 125(3) Cr.P.C for so many months, the Magistrate