The court clarified that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., imprisonment for more than one month can be awarded for non-payment of maintenance, as the provision allows for imprisonment for each month's maintenance that is due.

RAJESHWAR SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THE Magistrate awarded maintenance to the wife u/s. 125 of the Criminal P. C. to be paid by the husband at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per month. The husband did not make payment and the Court committed the husband to jail for 14 months as maintenance for 14 months was due. Against that order the husband filed a revision, that was dismissed. But that did not satisfy the husband and instead of paying maintenance to the wife he again spent in litigation and filed this application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. for review or recall of the order dismissing the revision alleging that "a very obnoxious interpretation has been made" by this Court and the order dismissing the revision was "utterly smarting under the abuse of judicial process".

( 2 ) IN the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chander Agarwala, AIR 1979 SC 87 the Supreme Court said that once a judgment has been pronounced by a High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained. In the application for review some rulings are cited, but they have not been referred at the time of argument. However, I proceed to consider this review application on merits assuming only for the purpose of this case that review is maintainable.

( 3 ) THE first argument is that imprisonment for more than one month cannot be awarded even if maintenance may have been due for more than one month. For this purpose the language of S. 125 (3), Cr. P. C. is to be seen and the principle of interpretation is that so far as possible every word used by the legislature has to be given meaning and not to be treated surplus without clear justification.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid provision says that the Magistrate "may sentence such person, for. . . . . . . each months maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or until payment if sooner made," The use of word "each" is significant. It has to be given full meaning. The provision says that for each months allowance the person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month. In other words it would mean that if there is a failure to pay several months maintenance then imprisonment will be up to one month for each months allowance and thus in whole it may be for more than one month. In the above provision quoted in inverted commas after the word for there are words " the whole or any part of ". These words do not alter the meaning. They merely provide that one months imprisonment may be ordered for one months maintenance or even for a part of one Months maintenance. So the provision is clear that more than one months imprisonment can be awarded and argument of the applicant has no force.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has cited the case of Mohd. Ahmad v. State, 1988 LLJ 250 (Sic) decided by a Division Bench of this Court. It was decided by two Judges. It does support the applicants argument when it says that "the maximum period has to be one month for any one default. Here the order of Magistrate awarding more than one months imprisonment was held invalid. It appears that in that case during the course of arguments at the bar the provisions of S. 125 (3) Cr. P. C. were not analysed and it was not pointed out that the word default was nowhere used in the Section. It was because of this that another view appears to have been taken. No doubt it would have been binding on this Court, but for the decision of five Judges of this Court in the case of Emperor v. Beni, AIR 1938 All 386. In this case of Beni, this Court was considering provisions of S. 488 of the Code of 1898. There the words used were similar. In that provision it was said that the Magistrate may sentence such person for each months allowance to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month. The Court held that the intention of the Legislature was to empower the Magistrate to award imprisonment for a period of one month in respect of each Months def