MOIDEENKUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a defaulter be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C for non payment of maintenance Does the expression "imprisonment" in Section 125(3) Cr.P.C take within its sweep rigorous imprisonment also These are the questions of law that are raised in this R.P.F.C.

(2.) To the crucial and vital facts first: the petitioner who is undergoing imprisonment now had suffered an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C to pay maintenance to the claimants. He did not pay such amounts and this obliged the Family Court to initiate proceedings against him under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The amount remained unpaid. By the impugned order passed under Section 128 Cr.P.C, for the default committed in payment of maintenance for the period of twelve months the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve months. The amount earned as wages was directed to be paid to the claimants.

(3.) The learned counsel assails the impugned order on two specific grounds. First of all, it is contended that the order passed is too harsh and insensitive inasmuch as the petitioner has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 12 months for the default which is the maximum period to which a defaulter can be sentenced. Leniency must, at any rate, have been shown. It must be remembered that the petitioner is now forced to undergo imprisonment only because of his genuine difficulty to raise the amount for discharging the liability, contends counsel.