RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition I propose to dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 16001-M of 1994, 16003-M of 1994 and 13544-M of 1994. The facts have been taken from the first case, as the facts are similar in all the three cases.

(2.) PETITIONER Ravinder Kumar was married to respondent No. 2 Pinky. As the couple developed differences, the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 3rd December, 1993, Annexure P-4 to the petition. During the pendency of the proceedings prior to the divorce, respondent No. 2 obtained an order for the grant of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Crl. Procedure. As the petitioner was either unable or unwilling to pay the arrears of maintenance, the Court granted him a number of opportunities to make the payments and when ultimately the petitioner did not pay the said arrears, the Judicial Magistrate 1st, Class, Kurukshetra vide his order dated 5.2.1993 sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment for one year for non payment, of the arrears of the maintenance. On the same day, the Magistrate concerned passed two other orders for the same lapses but pertaining to different periods of time and imposed the same terms of imprisonment in the other two cases as well. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in all the three cases the sentence of one year each was imposed on the same date i.e. 5th February, 1993 and as there was no direction that the sentences would run concurrently, the petitioner was being called upon to serve three terms of one year each consecutively.

(3.) IT has been argued by Mr. A.K. Kanwar that the petitioner being a poor labourer, was unable to pay the arrears of maintenance and that he has undergone almost one year and 10 months of the sentence imposed on him and, therefore, a direction should be issued that the sentences imposed on him on 5th February, 1993 should run concurrently as provided under section 427 Cr.P.C. I find merit in the stand of the learned counsel. It will be seen that the petitioner who is a poor labourer has already undergone more than one year and 10 months of the sentence and it would not be in the interest of justice to keep him in Jail for another one year and two months, as the facts of the present case justify that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate should have been ordered to run concurrently. The present petition is accordingly allowed and a direction is issued that the sentence of one year RI imposed in the three cases would run concurrently. If it is found that the petitioner has undergone the requisite period of sentence, he should be released forthwith. Petition allowed.