MANOJ MARKAS THORAT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant is the husband, who is directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month to his wife under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). He made several defaults. His wife was constrained to file several Execution Applications in the Family Court since, under the first proviso to Section 125, each Execution Application had to be made within a period of one year. The wife was constrained to file several Execution Applications for periods of 12 months or less each. Four such Execution Applications came to be disposed of under the impugned order of the Family Court No.4, Mumbai, on 18.7.2009. Under each of those Applications, the Applicant herein was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for the number of months that the maintenance amount was left in arrears. Consequently, in ER No. 180 of 2006, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 months or until payment of Rs. 10,500/-, whichever was earlier. In ER No. 179 of 2007, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 11 months or until the payment of Rs. 11,000/, whichever was earlier. In ER No.219 of 2008, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 11 months or until the payment of Rs. 11,000/-, whichever was earlier. In ER No.245 of 2009, the Applicant was directed to suffer simple imprisonment for 12 months or until the payment of Rs. 17,500/-, whichever was earlier (which was the enhanced amount of maintenance of Rs. 1,500/ - per month). Further the Respondent was directed to suffer the sentence imposed under each of the succeeding Applications after completion of his sentence for each of those earlier Applications.

(2.) The Application as well as the order exemplify and bring out the stark reality of the agony the wives are required to undergo at the hands of the husbands who disobey orders of maintenance with impunity. It further shows the delay that is caused in our justice system for granting the wife her due after her Application has been filed in the Family Court. The Applications of the years 2006, 2007; 2008 and 2009 at-last came to be disposed of on 18.7.2009. The husband has been a consistent, persistent, consummate and inveterate defaulter. The order shows that no part of the maintenance amount came to be paid. The order further reflects that the maintenance amount came to be enhanced in or about 2009, but even initial amount of maintenance was not paid.

(3.) Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code sets out the consequences of failure of payment of the amount of maintenance ordered under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. It runs thus :-