RAVICHANDRAN TIRUPUR DISTRICT Vs. SARASWATHI UTTAMAPALAYAM DHASAVANAICKENPTTI VELLKOVIL KANGEYAM TALUK DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: (i) The respondent herein filed Criminal M.P. No. 1591 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, Erode District, for the purpose of enforcing the arrears of maintenance for the period of 15 months so as to say between 4.3.2005 and 4.6.2006 as the revision petitioner herein failed to pay the maintenance to the respondent as per the order of the Court dated 20.1.2006 made in M.C. No. 4 of 2005 ordering the revision petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after securing the presence of the revision petitioner herein, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 15 months for such non payment of arrears. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo 15 months imprisonment, this revision is filed on the ground that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to award more than one month imprisonment at a time, whatever be the arrears.

(2.) THE point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of law in sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo imprisonment for 15 months?.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent would cite the decision of the Hon-ble Apex Court Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh AIR 1989 SC 232 : (1999) SCC (Crl) 171 and develop his argument to the effect that simply because the revision petitioner undergoes imprisonment, the liability to pay maintenance would not get obliterated. Absolutely, there could be no quarrel over such a proposition. However, in this case since the Magistrate awarded 15 months imprisonment as against one month imprisonment contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. this Court has to exercise its revisional powers to set aside the said order and reduce the period of sentence of 15 months to one month simple imprisonment. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court immediately and if he does not surrender, the learned judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, shall issue non bailable warrant, secure his presence and commit him to jail to undergo one month simple imprisonment if not already undergone. Any portion of imprisonment if already gone by him, the same shall be set off as against the period of one month. THE learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per the order of suspension dated 5.3.2007 passed by this court, some amount was directed to be deposited before the lower Court. THE revision petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same. This criminal revision cases accordingly allowed.