Imprisonment Of Husband Cannot Exceed One Month In Single Application Claiming Arrears Of Maintenance: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a subsequent order passed by the trial court sentencing a husband to suffer two more months civil imprisonment after he had already spent one month, on account of non-payment of maintenance to the wife.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandrashekhar who had challenged the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for...
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a subsequent order passed by the trial court sentencing a husband to suffer two more months civil imprisonment after he had already spent one month, on account of non-payment of maintenance to the wife.
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by one Chandrashekhar who had challenged the order sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for an additional period of two months for non-payment of arrears of maintenance.
The bench referred to the co-ordinate bench judgment in the case of Shri. Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, wherein it was held that a wife or person entitled to maintenance may file an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance either for the whole amount due or for each month's allowance separately. If the application is for the whole amount of arrears, the imprisonment may extend to one month, unless the payment is made sooner. Further successive applications can be filed for each month's maintenance; however, where an application is filed for the entire arrears, the imprisonment imposed cannot exceed one month, it had said.
The confinement beyond the prescribed period for a single application claiming arrears of maintenance is illegal, the court had said.
Following which the high court said “The respondent initially filed an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance for 24 months, and the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for one month, which was in accordance with the law. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second application for recovery of maintenance arrears for the said 24 months. In light of the principles laid down by this Court in Shri. Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate sentencing the petitioner to further imprisonment for two months is not legally sustainable.”
It was the case of the husband that wife had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, seeking maintenance. The Family Court, after considering the matter, passed an order granting maintenance. The petitioner's failure to comply with the order prompted her to file an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C, for recovery of arrears of maintenance.
The Magistrate court allowed the application and sentenced the petitioner to civil imprisonment for a period of one month due to his non-compliance with the maintenance order under Section 125(1) of Cr.P.C.
After completion of the one-month imprisonment, the wife filed another application, alleging non-payment of arrears of maintenance for 24 months. The Magistrate, by the impugned order, sentenced the petitioner to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two months.
Accordingly it allowed the petition.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103364 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 92