RAM LAL vs REETA DEVI AND OTHERS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2528

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125(3) - Non-payment of maintenance - Civil imprisonment - Power of Magistrate to sentence a defaulter to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month for each month's default - Sentencing to jail is a ‘mode of enforcement’ and not a ‘mode of satisfaction’ of the liability; the liability is only satisfied by actual payment of arrears (Paras 8, 12).

(B) Interpretation of Section 125(3) - Where arrears of maintenance pertain to more than one month, imprisonment exceeding one month can be imposed, as the limit of one month is applicable to each month of default (Paras 16, 17). Magistrate may entertain separate applications or a common application for several months of default and pass appropriate orders (Para 17).

Facts of the case:
A challenge was made against orders of a trial court sentencing the petitioner to successive periods of civil imprisonment (30, 15, and 25 days) for failure to pay maintenance arrears for June, July, and August 2018. The petitioner contended that the Magistrate exceeded jurisdiction by sentencing him for more than one month continuously, arguing that the law limits imprisonment to a maximum of one month.

Findings of Court:
The court held that there was no illegality in the trial court's orders. The petitioner's continuous failure to pay arrears for multiple months rendered him liable for imprisonment for each month of default, and the trial court had provided sufficient opportunities for payment before imposing the sentences.

Issues: Whether the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to sentence a maintenance defaulter to civil imprisonment for a period exceeding one month in total when arrears are due for multiple months.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that Section 125 Cr.P.C. is social legislation and requires liberal construction for the benefit of the dependents. It clarified that the one-month limit on imprisonment applies to each individual month of default, not as an absolute ceiling for all arrears combined. Consequently, the court can impose successive sentences or a consolidated sentence exceeding one month if the default spans multiple months, as imprisonment serves as a method of enforcing the order rather than discharging the financial debt.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging magistrate orders sentencing a maintenance defaulter to civil imprisonment under Section 125(3) CrPC for non-payment of monthly maintenance arrears. (Para 1 , 2 , 19 , 20 )

2. Defaulter argued the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to impose continuous imprisonment beyond one month; respondents argued the one-month limit applies per monthly default and the authority cited was distinguishable. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )

3. Petition dismissed; impugned orders upheld and no illegality found in imposing separate civil imprisonment for each month's default; pending applications and interim orders disposed of. (Para 23 )

4. Does Section 125(3) CrPC permit cumulative imprisonment exceeding one month where maintenance arrears relate to more than one month?

Yes. The one-month ceiling applies per month of default. A Magistrate may impose separate terms of imprisonment up to one month for each monthly default, including through a consolidated application; the limit is not a single one-month cap for all defaults. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 21 , 22 )

5. Does undergoing civil imprisonment for default discharge the liability to pay maintenance arrears?

No. Imprisonment under Section 125(3) CrPC is only a mode of enforcement and not a mode of satisfaction; the liability remains recoverable despite the defaulter having been jailed. (Para 9 , 12 )

6. Can a claimant recover arrears for several months through one application, or must a separate application be filed for each month's default?

Maintenance liability is continuing, so successive applications for each month's default are not required. A single application may cover arrears for the preceding twelve months, and the Magistrate may then issue separate warrants or sentences for each month's default. (Para 10 , 11 , 17 , 18 )

7. Does the one-year proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC extinguish the right to maintenance arrears older than one year?

No. The proviso limits only the summary recovery procedure by warrant; it does not bar or extinguish the substantive entitlement, and a civil action for recovery remains available. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 )

2026:HHC:17096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1036 of 2024

Judgment Reserved on: 04.05.2026

Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

Ram Lal …….Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Reeta Devi and others … Respondents

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondent-State.

Sandeep Sharma, Judge

(oral):

1. Instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to orders dated 21.09.2024 and 05.10.2024, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.5, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case No.128 Cr.P.C/49932 of 2019 (CNR No.HPSH110499552019) and case No.128 Cr.P.C/7/2019, on the ground that Court below has passed aforesaid orders beyond its jurisdiction and has illegally sent the petitioner to civil imprisonment for more than one month continuously.

2. Quintessential facts, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties, are that respondents No.1 to 3 (wife and minor daughters of the petitioner) filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C seeking payment of arrears of maintenance , amounting to Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 5000/- per month from June 2018 to 2019. Since factum with regard to arrears of maintenance never came to be disputed at the behest of the petitioner, Court below, after recording the statement of the petitioner, granted him an opportunity to deposit the maintenance amount, specifically clarifying in the order that failing which, he shall render himself liable for punishment in accordance with law. However, fact remains that petitioner failed to deposit sum of Rs. 60,000/-, whereafter learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class sentenced him to civil imprisonment for a period of 30 days on account of non-payment of arrears pertaining to the month of June, 2018, with a direction that he shall be released forthwith upon payment of the remaining arrears of maintenance i.e., Rs. 60,000/-. Even after expiry of 30 days, petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, as a result thereof, he was further sentenced to civil imprisonment for a period of 15 days on account of non-payment of arrears of maintenance for the month of July, 2018. Yet again, upon failure to deposit the arrears amount, petitioner was sentenced to civil imprisonment for a further period of 25 days for non-payment of arrears of maintenance for month of August, 2018. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set-aside aforesaid orders.

3. In nutshell, case of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the grounds of the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that learned Court below has acted beyond its jurisdiction in sentencing the petitioner to civil imprisonment for more than one month continuously. While inviting attention of this Court to provisions contained under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that learned Magistrate could not have sentenced the petitioner to civil imprisonment for a period exceeding one month. To substantiate his aforesaid plea, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shahada Khatoon and others vs. Amjad Ali and others ,(1999) 5 SCC 672. Besides above, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that otherwise also, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, as he is a labourer and would only be able to pay the arrears of maintenance if he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
RAM LAL – Appellant
Versus
REETA DEVI AND OTHERS – Respondent
CRMMO/1036/2024

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does Section 125(3) CrPC permit cumulative imprisonment exceeding one month where maintenance arrears relate to more than one month?

5. Does undergoing civil imprisonment for default discharge the liability to pay maintenance arrears?

6. Can a claimant recover arrears for several months through one application, or must a separate application be filed for each month's default?

7. Does the one-year proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC extinguish the right to maintenance arrears older than one year?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMARAM LAL – AppellantVersusREETA DEVI AND OTHERS – RespondentCRMMO/1036/2024

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does Section 125(3) CrPC permit cumulative imprisonment exceeding one month where maintenance arrears relate to more than one month?

5. Does undergoing civil imprisonment for default discharge the liability to pay maintenance arrears?

6. Can a claimant recover arrears for several months through one application, or must a separate application be filed for each month's default?

7. Does the one-year proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC extinguish the right to maintenance arrears older than one year?

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
RAM LAL – Appellant
Versus
REETA DEVI AND OTHERS – Respondent
CRMMO/1036/2024