IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 14 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 36370 of 2019

BALWAN SINGH

Versus

DEVKI @ LAXMI AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Ms. Shabnam Bano Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER petitioner’s application seeking temporary release to attend to his critically ill mother admitted in Government Hospital, Datia, was also rejected. It was further submitted that the respondent has been living separately of her own volition, has refused to cohabit despite repeated efforts, and has expressly declined to live with the petitioner in pending divorce proceedings, thereby disentitling her to maintenance.

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 23.07.2019 passed by learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Dabra District Gwalior in Cr.R. No.24/2019 whereby the criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 03.06.2019 passed by JMFC

Dabra in Case No. 52/2014 was dismissed affirming the said order.

In brief the facts of the case are that the respondent/wife filed MJC Case

No. 52/2019 (Unwan Devki v. Balwan Bawat) before the JMFC, Dabra, District Gwalior (M.P.) for recovery of arrears of maintenance. Due to non-payment, the learned JMFC, by order dated 03.06.2019, directed that the petitioner be taken into custody and lodged in Sub Jail, Dabra. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, contending that although maintenance was ordered under Section 125 CrPC, he is a daily wage labourer with no permanent source of income and could not pay the arrears in lump sum. Despite having remained in jail for four to five months rendering him incapable of earning, the court below failed to grant time for payment and continued his incarceration, which may result in indefinite imprisonment. The

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional court, acting in violation of the principles of natural justice, failed to properly appreciate and evaluate the facts and evidence on record, and dismissed the revision petition solely on technical legal grounds. The petitioner made bona fide efforts to keep the respondent with him and to discharge his matrimonial obligations; however, the respondent refused to reside with the petitioner. Even at present, the petitioner is willing to keep the respondent with him, but the respondent, without any justifiable cause and of her own volition, is unwilling to cohabit with the petitioner.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for the last five months and has no other source of income. He is responsible for the maintenance of his aged mother and other family members. At present, the petitioner’s mother is seriously ill and her death is apprehended; due to the petitioner’s incarceration, her proper care and treatment are not being ensured. The impugned order passed by the learned revisional court in the proceedings relating to recovery of maintenance has been passed without proper consideration of the relevant facts, circumstances, and settled principles of law, and is therefore ex facie unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The revisional court has rightly appreciated the material on record and has recorded a clear finding that the petitioner, despite repeated opportunities, expressed his inability and lack of arrangement to pay the maintenance amount, which amounts to a willful and deliberate non-compliance of the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The finding that such conduct justified issuance of warrant and commitment to civil prison is supported by settled legal principles and the decision relied upon by the revisional court. The contention of the petitioner regarding his financial incapacity and personal difficulties does not absolve him of his statutory obligation to maintain the respondent, nor i