##PAGE1##

1 CRR-482-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

CRR No. 482 of 2026

(KAILASH NAHAR Vs SMT. VERSHA NAHAR AND OTHERS )

Dated : 05-02-2026

Shri C.L. Sethi - learned counsel for the applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F. within 07 working

days.

This revision is filed against the order dated 19.01.2026 (Annexure

A/1) whereby the learned Family Court Judge at Bhopal after hearing

learned counsel for both the parties directed that non-applicant/ husband/

revisionist has to pay the outstanding amount and there is no scope of

interference in the order dated 11.11.2025 of the same Court i.e. Family

Court, Bhopal.

On perusal of the order dated 11.11.2025, it seen that the direction has

been made to husband Kailash Nahar to pay the amount of Rs.2,11,000/-.

The application was filed on 7.8.2024 for the last 12 months i.e. 12 x Rs.

8,000/- = Rs. 96,000/- and since date of order - 15 x 8,000/- = Rs. 1,20,000/-,

thus total amount comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- minus Rs. 5,000/- = Rs. 2,11,000/-

. The maintenance amount is of Rs.8,000/- per month, therefore, in one

application outstanding amount of 12 months can be sought to be recovered

and for the same the husband can be sent to civil jail but for prior amount for

the period before filing application on 7.8.2024, if any, liability is not washed

off and can be recovered otherwise, without issuance of warrant for sending

husband to jail in the case of "J" Vs. State of Maharashtra and another vide

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH

Signing time: 07-02-2026

12:40:46

2 CRR-482-2026

order dated 22.02.2024 Hon'ble Bench at Mumbai High Court has laid down

as below :-

" 14. There has been considerable debate on the proviso to sub

section (3) as to whether the proviso limits the power of the

Magistrate to sentence the defaulter to a term exceeding 12

months. Plain reading of the proviso makes it evident that the

proviso creates an embargo on power of Magistrate to issue

warrant for recovery of amount which has become due beyond

period of one year. Although on first blush it appears that the

proviso deals with the limitation for filling of application and bars

issuance of warrant in respect of any amount unless an application

is made within period of one year from the date from which the

amount has become due, the proviso when read with the main

section makes it evident that by limiting the application for

issuance of warrant to a period of 12 months, the power of the

Magistrate stands restricted to impose maximum punishment of

imprisonment for period 12 months. If an application cannot be

filed seeking warrant for recovery of amount remaining unpaid for

period of more than one year, there is no question of imprisonment

being imposed for a term exceeding one year. The period of 12

months is the outer limit."

The same is the principle laid down vide order dated 7.1.2025 in the case

of "Between " Vs. respondent in Criminal Petition No. 103364 of 2024

wherein in para 5, Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has laid down as under :-

"5. The issue raised in this petition has been addressed

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri.

Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, where the Court,

interpreting Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., held as follows:

● A wife or person entitled to maintenance may file an

application for recovery of arrears of maintenance either

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: VIKRAM SINGH

Signing time: 07-02-2026

12:40:46

3 CRR-482-2026

for the whole amount due or for each month’s

allowance separately.

● If the application is for the whole amount of arrears,

the imprisonment may extend to one month, unless the

payment is made sooner.

● Successive applications can be filed for each month’s

maintenance; however, where an application is filed for

the entire arrears, the imprisonment imposed cannot

exceed one month.

● The Co-ordinate Bench in the aforementioned case

observed that confinement beyond the prescribed period

for a single application claiming arrears of maintenance

is illegal."

In the case of Jan