Maximum Imprisonment For Non-Compliance With Maintenance Order U/S.125(3) CrPC Is One Month; Trial Court Can’t Continuously Imprison Husband: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred against the order passed by the Family Court rejecting the petition filed by a man seeking his release from civil imprisonment.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has held that the maximum period of imprisonment for non-compliance with a maintenance order under Section 125(3) of the Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is one month, and the Trial Court cannot continuously imprison a husband under this provision.
The High Court was considering a criminal appeal preferred against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, rejecting the petition filed by a man seeking his release from civil imprisonment imposed on account of non-payment of monthly maintenance to his wife.
The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held, "In view of above the trial court cannot continuously imprison a husband under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C for nonpayment of monthly maintenance without regard to the statutory limits and the nature of the remedy. Imprisonment under section 125(3) Cr.P.C is a mode of enforcement of a maintenance order and does not extinguish the underlying liability, but successive sentences cannot be imposed for the same default, and the maximum imprisonment for non-compliance with a maintenance order is one month per default."
“The maximum period of imprisonment for non-compliance with a maintenance order under Section 125(3) is one month; a longer sentence is impermissible. The liability to pay maintenance is continuous, and successive applications for enforcement are permissible, but each must be for a distinct default", it added.
Advocate Rishav Kumar represented the Petitioner while Advocate D.C. Mishra represented the Opposite Party.
Factual Background
The petitioner’s wife (first opposite party) filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC claiming maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month for herself and Rs. 3,000 per month for her minor daughter (second Opposite Party). The marriage was solemnised in 2017, and out of the said wedlock, a child was born, after which the wife was allegedly subjected to physical and mental torture by the Petitioner-husband. The Family Court, Dumka, directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs 5,000 per month to the wife and Rs 3,000 per month to the child.
The wife, thereafter, filed an enforcement petition for the execution of the order passed in the Original Maintenance Case alleging that arrears were pending and the petitioner had not paid the arrears. The petitioner was arrested and kept in custody through successive orders. The husband filed an application seeking his release from judicial custody on the grounds of his inability to pay the maintenance amount and prolonged detention. However, the Court rejected the said application on the very same day and directed that the Petitioner be sent to imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance dues for the month of March, 2026.
Reasoning
Referring to Sub-section 3 of Section 125 of CrPC, the Bench explained that only for 30 days one can be detained for non-payment of the maintenance amount and for every breach of the order, the same can be imposed within the statutory period of one year. The Bench further explained that if the husband offers to maintain his wife and the wife refuses to live with him, the Court is required to consider the grounds of refusal stated by the wife.
The Bench thus clarified, “Section 125(3) serves as a method of enforcing compliance with maintenance orders and does not extinguish the underlying liability. The court in the revision case regarding enforcement of maintenance emphasized that the liability to pay maintenance is ongoing and can be enforced through successive applications without limitation on the total amount recoverable ”
The Bench was of the view that, against the statutory provision under section 125 (3) of CrPC, the maximum imprisonment imposed under the provisions of law under section 125 (3) CrPC is one month for one default. Considering that the Court had gone on extending the custody for 30 days by way of 23 orders, the Bench set aside the impugned order. Allowing the revision, the Bench directed, “The petitioner is ordered to be released forthwith.”
Cause Title: A v. B (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:30968)