DURGA SINGH LODHI Vs. PREMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the consequences resulting from non-compliance of the order passed under S.125(1), Cr. P.C., directing payment of maintenance of allowance. Where a person under such obligation to pay maintenance allowance fails, without sufficient cause, to comply with the order granting maintenance, a warrant for the recovery of the amount may be issued on an application made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due. If, despite such a warrant the maintenance allowance is not paid, the person may even be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment, if sooner made. If, however, such person offers to maintain his wife on the condition of her living with him and the wife refuses to live with him, the Magistrate may consider any ground of refusal stated by her and way make an order as aforesaid, notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is a just ground for so doing.

(2.) Can a person, suffering an order for payment of maintenance under S.125(1), Cr. P.C., with no property whatsoever, be sentenced to imprisonment on his failure to pay monthly maintenance allowance, even after issuance of a warrant for levy of such amount, is a question mooted in this petition. It will, therefore, be just to quote S.125(3), Cr. P.C. at this stage.

(3.) The order under S.125(1), Cr. P.C. is enforced by issuance of a distress warrant in the manner provided in the Code for levying fines. If, in spite of such a warrant, the monthly allowance awarded under S.125(1) remains unpaid, an order for imprisonment as provided under S.125(3) may be passed. A single Bench of this Court, in Bhure Balram v. Gomtibai, 1981 0 MPLJ 277 has even observed that issuance of distress warrant before directing imprisonment under S.125(3), Cr. P.C. is not mandatory and if the attitude of the husband (in that case) shows that the maintenance amount may not be paid even after a distress warrant is issued, directing imprisonment is justified. It was observed that imprisonment is a means of enforcement of payment and an order of imprisonment can be passed, if there has been negligence to pay maintenance.