246 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.09.2025 PARGAT SINGH …Petitioner V/S RAJWANT KAUR …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Yogesh Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J. (Oral)

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing order dated 13.05.2022 of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, in execution petition No. 182 of 2018 titled Rajwant Kaur Vs. Pargat Singh and Others under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The only argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. governing the application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, sentence of imprisonment beyond a period of one month could not be passed and learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, gravely erred in awarding sentence of 06 months imprisonment to the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, in default of payment of maintenance amount for around 44 months. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies upon judgment passed by this Court in Crl. Revision No.

1676 of 2015, titled Krishan Kumar Vs. Ritu and Others, decided on

25.02.2016.

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife submits that on account of the interim stay granted in this petition, respondent-wife was being deprived of the maintenance allowance. He, however, concedes that provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. applied to the proceedings pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, and sentence of more than one month could not be awarded for each months default.

Vide impugned order dated 13.05.2022, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, sentenced the petitioner/Judgment Debtor to six months imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance amount for 44 months, in an application for execution of order dated 09.03.2018 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Section 28 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides that:

“(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.”

Further, Rule 6 Sub-rule (5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006, provides that an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall be dealt with and the orders enforced in the same manner as laid down under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In Shahada Khatoon Vs. Ajmad Ali (1999) 5 SCC 672, Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the confinement can extend to only one month and if, even after the expiry of one month, the delinquent husband does not make the payment of arrears, the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief, but confinement of the husband, must be only for one month. This decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court further lays down a fetter in the exercise of this power by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class or the Family Judge to the extent that only a confinement of a period of one month can be passed on application, whether the amount claimed by the wife as arrears is for more than one month or for only a month. In one stroke, no composite confinement can be directed by the Court.

In view of the settled position of law, order dated 13.05.2022 of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-cum-Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal, is set aside, being violative of the mandate.

Parties, through their counsels, are directed to appear before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal on the date fixed. Learned Judicial Magi