1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2002 of 2025 Santram Ratre S/o Shatruhan Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Khisora, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Smt. Madhuri Bai Ratre W/o Santram Ratre Aged About 26 Years D/o Bharat Jangade, R/o Village Khisora, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2. Raj Ratre S/o Santram Ratre Aged About 7 Years Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Madhuri Ratre, R/o Village Khisora, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 3. Sristi Ratre D/o Santram Ratre Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Her Natural Guardian Mother Madhuri Ratre, R/o Village Khisora, Police Station And Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Gourav Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.30 14:18:43 +0530 2 30/06/2025 1. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa directing the petitioner to undergo civil imprisonment for six months. 2. The petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents 2 & 3. The Family Court, Janjgir passed an order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the respondents. The petitioner defaulted in making payment of the maintenance amount for which the respondents filed an application before the Family Court, Janjgir under Section 125(3) of CrPC stating that the petitioner has not paid the maintenance amount of Rs.48,000/- for 12 months from March, 2023 to February, 2024. The Family Court, vide impugned order dated 24.04.2025, directed the petitioner to undergo civil imprisonment for six months, leading to the filing of this petition. 3. Now, the sole question for consideration in this petition is whether any jurisdictional Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 125(3) of the CrPC, can pass an order of civil imprisonment to a defaulter husband in payment of maintenance for more than one month in one stretch? 4. In order to consider the plea raised in this petition, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions contained under Section 125(3) of the CrPC which read as under :- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.—(1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx 3 (3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the due date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.—If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.” 5. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that if the amount of arrears including maintenance and expenses of the proceeding are not paid after the issuance of warrant, the Court trying the application under Section 125(3) of the CrPC is competent to direct for imprisonment of the person so accused for a term which may extend to one month or “until payment if sooner made”. Even this provision does not entitle the Court trying the 4 application under Section 125(3) of the CrPC to impose imprisonment for more than one month at the most in one stretch and that one month's period can be reduced, provided if the payment is made even before the one month period. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Khatoon and others v. Amjad Ali and others reported in (1999) 5 SCC 672 has clearly held that the Magistrate has no power to impose a sentence for more than one month and it was observed as under :- “The language of sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiry of one month, for breach or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.” 7. The principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shahada Khatoon (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Poongodi and another v. Thangavel, (2013) 10 SCC 618 wherein the relevant portion being paragraphs 6 and 7 is quoted herein below :- “6. In another decision of this Court in Shantha v. B.G. Shivananjappa1 it has been held that the liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 1 (2005) 4 SCC 468 5 CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The nature of the right to receive maintenance and the concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali (supra). Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to approach the court by means of successive applications under Section 125(3) CrPC highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of maintenance was acknowledged by this Court in Shahada Khatoon (supra). 7. The ratio of the decisions in the aforesaid cases squarely applies to the present case. The application dated 5-2-2002 filed by the appellants under Section 125(3) was in continuation of the earlier applications and for subsequent periods of default on the part of the respondent. The first proviso to Section 125(3), therefore did not extinguish or limit the entitlement of the appellants to the maintenance granted by the learned trial court, as has been held by the High Court.” 8. The principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases was followed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this High Court in the matter of Mustak Khan v. Smt. Naima Khatun & another decided on 24.02.2020 in CRMP No.2343/2019 and held that the jurisdictional Court cannot pass an order directing imprisonment of defaulting husband for more than one month at the most at one stretch. As such, it is held that the Jurisdictional Court dealing with the application under Section 125(3) of CrPC cannot pass an order of civil imprisonment to the defaulter husband in payment of maintenance for more than one month at one stretch. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 is set 6 aside. The matter is remanded back to the Family Court to decide the case in the light of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this High Court and pass an order afresh. 10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Family Court today itself for information and necessary compliance, if any. 11. The CRMP thus stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai