IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4414 of 2022 UJJAWAL MISHRA Versus SMT. ADITI MISHRA DIVORCED AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Agrawal - Advocate for the applicant/husband.

Shri Aditya Ahiwasi - Advocate for the respondent/wife.

ORDER Heard on admission.

This revision is filed against the impugned order dated 14/07/2022 passed by learned Fist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJCR No.1180/2019 whereby learned trial Court has directed to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife in a proceeding under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. holding that the amount of Rs.13,50,000/- is due and payable by the husband to the respondent/wife.

Learned counsel for the applicant relies on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Nanhi Bai and others vs. Netram, 2001(3)

MPLJ 170, wherein in Para-14 & 15 held as under :-

"14. ............................................................................. The other side of the coin is, if maintenance is not claimed for one yar it becomes irrecoverable as husband or other person may not be in a position to pay it in lump-sum and it appears that law presumes that for such a right of maintenance a really needy person should not sit idle and must enforce the order in accordance with its spirit and purpose for which it is passed, to meet day to day essential requirement for very survival.

15. In our opinion first proviso to section 125(3) of the Code deals only with the limitation aspect. If, a sum has fallen due, it should be recovered in one year. The person claiming dues has to approach the Court in one year and set the machinery in motion. Then there is nothing in the first proviso to section125(3) to put embargo on Court's power to direct recovery of amount of monthly maintenance falling due during the pendency of the recovery proceedings initiated at the first instance for recovery of past arrears."

Learned counsel for the respondent also relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poongodi & another vs. Thangavel, 2013 (10) SCC 618, wherein in Para- 4 to 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"4. A reading of the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the High Court would go to show that the proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC has been construed by the High Court to be a fetter on the entitlement of the claimants to receive arrears of maintenance beyond a period of one year preceding the date of filing of the application under Section 125(3) CrPC. Having considered the said provision of the Code we do not find that the same creates a bar or in any way effects the entitlement of a claimant to arrears of maintenance. What the proviso contemplates is that the procedure for recovery of maintenance under Section 125(3) CrPC, namely, by construing the same to be a levy of a fine and the detention of the defaulter in custody would not be available to a claimant who had slept over his/her rights and has not approached the Court within a period of one year commencing from the date on which the entitlement to receive maintenance has accrued. However, in such a situation the ordinary remedy to recover the amount of maintenance, namely, a civil action would still be available.

5. The decision of this Court in Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh and Anr.[1] may be usefully recalled wherein this Court has held the provision of sentencing under Section 125 (3) to be a “mode of enforcement” as distinguished from the “mode of satisfaction” of the liability which can only be by means of actual payment. Paragraph 6 of the report to the above effect, namely, that the mode of enforcement i.e. sentencing to custody does not extinguish the liability may be extracted below:

“6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of enforcing recovery on the one hand and effecting actual recovery of the amount of monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears on