RAYINKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sufferance of the default sentence under Section 3(4) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act - will that wipe off the liability for payment of amounts due under Section 3 of that Act This is the crucial question for consideration in this case. Petitioner had suffered an order under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He was directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- under various heads. The petitioner did not pay (he amount. The learned Magistrate proceeded to take steps under Section 3(4) of the Act to recover the amount. The proceedings against the petitioner was registered by the learned Magistrate as a calendar case and a judgment was pronounced in the said calendar case and a judgment was pronounced in the said calendar case sentencing the petitioner under Section 3(4) of the said Act to undergo imprisonment for one year or until the payment of the amount; of Rs. 2,15,000/- was made. The petitioner underwent the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year, it is submitted. But, after the petitioner returned from the prison, the Magistrate was informed that the petitioner was having in his possession properties belonging to him and accordingly the learned Magistrate is now proceeding with steps to recover the amount due under Section 3 of the Act from the petitioner by resort to recovery proceedings under Section 421 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner has come tot his Court with a grievance that the petitioner having already undergone the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 3(4) of the Act is not liable now to pay the amount and the steps taken are all without jurisdiction. The petitioner prays that appropriate orders may be passed to restrain the Magistrate and the recovery authorities from proceeding further with the steps for recovery under Section 3(4) of the Act read with 421 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The question whether a person who has already undergone the sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of amounts due is liable to face further proceedings for recovery has been considered by (he Supreme Court in the decision in Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh,. Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus in paragraph 6 of the said judgment: