AJITHKUMAR Vs. SHAIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The scope of the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") arises for a decision in this revision.

(2.) Short facts are: Respondent, wife of petitioner obtained in ex-parte order in her favour on 7.7.2004 directing petitioner to pay maintenance to her at the rate of Rs. 1,500 p.m. Petitioner did make an attempt to get over that ex-parte order but failed. Respondent sought enforcement of the order since petitioner did not pay the maintenance awarded. As petitioner failed to pay maintenance he was sentenced to imprisonment and accordingly he underwent imprisonment from November, 2006 till 25.4.2008. Respondent filed CMP (Ex.) No. 269 of 2008 on 29.5.2008 for realization of maintenance allowance for the period from 7.5.2006 to 6.5.2008. She alleged that petitioner has the capacity to pay maintenance allowance but he is purposely avoiding payment. Petitioner contended that due to the imprisonment he lost job, could not earn during the period he was in prison, he has no sufficient means that hence he cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance for the period from 7.5.2006 to 6.5.2008. Court below held that petitioner was imprisoned due to his own fault of non-payment of maintenance allowance and that he has capacity to pay maintenance. He was directed to pay maintenance for 12 months failing which he should undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. That order is under challenge in this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance as he was prevented by "sufficient cause" from not complying with the order.