Gujarat High Court
Anooj Balkrishna Agarwal vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE) NO.
1158 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANOOJ BALKRISHNA AGARWAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR HK PATEL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 24/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Learned A.P.P. Mr.H.K. Patel waives service of Rule for the respondent - State.
2. The present Revision Application has been preferred by the present applicant - original respondent - husband, challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined Application No.1243 of 2022, whereby order below Exh.1 dated 13.06.2024 came to be passed, sentencing the present applicant - original respondent to undergo 540 days' simple imprisonment for recovery of the amount of maintenance of Rs.40,72,000/- @ Rs.75,000/- per month for arrears of 54 months and, in default of every month, to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment.
3. Pursuant to the order passed by the learned trial Court, the present applicant was taken into custody by the learned Judicial Magistrate and sent him to Sabarmati Central Jail and the applicant is appearing virtually before this Court as party-in-person from Central Jail, Ahmedabad.
4. The short facts leading to filing of the present application are that respondent No. 4 - original petitioner had initially filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1265 of 2015 for relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "DV Act"), seeking various reliefs before the learned Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The learned 8 th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ahmedabad (Rural), by order dated 03.05.2019, was pleased to partly allow the said application by granting maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the original petitioner - wife and Rs.1,500/- each to both the children, thereby awarding total maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month, and also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards costs.
5. Further, being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad dated 03.05.2019, the original petitioner - wife preferred Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Ahmedabad for enhancement of maintenance amount and the said appeal was preferred before the learned 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) and the appellate Court vide order dated 12.04.2022 was pleased to partly allow the said appeal filed by the original petitioner - wife i.e. present respondent no. 4 and directed the present applicant original respondent - Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month to the respondent no. 4 - wife and Rs.25,000/- each to both the minor children from the date of filing of the complaint before the learned Trial Court and also directed the applicant herein to pay monetary compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the wife as per the provision of Section 22 of the DV Act. 5.1. Further, the judgment of the learned appellate Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2019 was challenged by the present applicant - original respondent - husband by preferring Criminal Revision Application No.457 of 2022 before Gujarat High Court and by order dated 22.07.2022, co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to dismiss the said revision application and the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2019 was confirmed. Thereafter, the said judgment was also assailed by the present applicant - original husband before the Hon'ble Apex Court by preferring a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 4578 of 2022, but the said SLP came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 14.02.2023. Thereafter, Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined present respondent no. 4 - original petitioner - wife preferred an application after the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2019 has been passed by the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), on 12.04.2022 enhancing the maintenance of the wife and children by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 1243 of 2022 for recovery of the maintenance amount and as per the judgment of the District Court, the maintenance amount has been enhanced and Rs.25,000/- has been awarded to the wife and Rs.25,000/- each to both the children from the date of application and the application came to be filed before the learned Magistrate Court under the provisions of Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 28 of the Domestic Violence Act for recovery of the amount from 07.08.2015 till 12.07.2022 @ Rs.75,000/- per month for total 54 months for recovery of amount of Rs.40,72,000/-.
6. Pursuant to that, the notices were issued.
7. The present applicant submitted that he has no Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined amount to pay and subsequently, he was sentenced to 540 days' simple imprisonment, in default, of arrears of the maintenance of 54 months and 10 days' simple imprisonment for every month's default and total 540 days' simple imprisonment was passed by order dated 13.06.2024, which is under challenge in the present application.
8. Heard the applicant, appearing as party-in-person through video conferencing from Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court rendered in the case of Gorakshnath Khandu Bagal vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. passed in Writ Petition (ST) No. 2435 of 2024, he submitted that it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that Magistrate under Section 125(3) cannot order imprisonment for more than 12 month's for default in maintenance in single application and it has been settled by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is further submitted that initially, the application under the provisions of the DV Act Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined came to be partly allowed on 03.05.2019 and subsequently, it was challenged by preferring Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2019 by the wife and the appellate Court vide order dated 12.04.2022 enhanced the maintenance amount and thereafter, for this total amount of 54 months, this application came to be filed. It is submitted that a single application cannot be filed for default of more than 12 months and after every 12 months' default, a separate application will have to be filed and Magistrate may impose imprisonment for a term of 12 months, which is the outer limit as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, it is submitted that considering this, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, sentencing the present applicant for 540 days' simple imprisonment is against the settled principles of law and requires to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Anuj K. Trivedi, for the respondent no.4 - wife has vehemently opposed the said application and submitted that the order Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, sentencing the present applicant for 540 days' simple imprisonment is just and proper and does not require any interference. Further, the learned advocate, in support of his arguments, relying upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court rendered in Criminal Reference No.2 of 2008 in Suo Moto Vs. State of Gujarat decided on 30.09.2008, submitted that as per the reference decided by the Gujarat High Court, it is open for the Magistrate to award sentence upto maximum of one month for each month of default committed by the person, ordered to pay maintenance and to maximum limit of sentence of one month referred to in Sub-Section (3) of Section 125 will be applicable for each month of default, and as per the findings of the Court, the Magistrate can even pass an order of sentence of maximum one month for each month of default. So, considering this the order is absolutely just and proper and does not require any interference.
10. Learned A.P.P., Mr.H.K. Patel on behalf of respondent Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined nos.1, 2 and 3 submitted that necessary order is required to be passed.
11. Heard party in person - applicant and learned advocate appearing for the respondents. The short facts of the case have already been narrated above. To appreciate the question as to whether, the bar of limitation under the proviso to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is appeable in light of the facts of the present case and for that reference, provision is required to be reproduce, which reads as under:
"Section 125(3). If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month's Jallowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding as the case may be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined unless application be made to the Court to levy, such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing."
12. In the present case, initially respondent no. 4 - original petitioner-wife had filed a complaint before the Magistrate under the provisions of the DV Act, which came to be partly allowed by the learned Magistrate. The same was challenged by the wife before the District Court by preferring an appeal for enhancement of the maintenance and the said appeal came to be partly allowed and the maintenance amount was enhanced. The said order was challenged by preferring revision application before this Court, which came to be dismissed and the order was further challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also not interfered in the order passed by the District Court. Hence, the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2019 has Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined attained finality and so far as the recovery of the arrear of the maintenance is concerned, an application has been preferred as provided under Section 28 of the DV Act by wife before the Magistrate Court under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The main argument of the applicant is that the Magistrate cannot pass a sentence more than 12 months and for that, he is relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai High Court. In this regard, it is profitable to peruse the judgment of the Hon'ble Larger Bench of this Court in Criminal Reference No.2 of 2008 decided on 30.09.2008 wherein, it is held as under:
"In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Bench.
"In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Ors., Vs. Amjad Ali and Ors., (1999) 5 SCC 672, when a person is ordered to pay maintenance under sub-section (1) of section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 fails without sufficient cause to comply with such order, whether the learned Magistrate, in exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of section 125 is empowered to sentence such person to imprisonment for a term exceeding one month.Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined
22. In the result, question is answered in following terms:
"Magistrate in exercise of powers under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code is empowered to sentence a defaulting person for a term upto one month (or until payment if sooner made) for each month of default subject of course to the limitation provided in proviso to sub-section (3) of section 125. In other words, it is open for the Magistrate to award sentence upto а maximum of one month for each month of default committed by the person ordered to pay maintenance and the maximum limit of sentence of one month referred to in sub-section (3) of section 125 will be applicable for each month of default. Magistrate can entertain separate applications from the person entitled to receive such maintenance or even entertain a common application for several months of default and pass appropriate order and, if found. necessary, sentence a defaulting person upto a maximum one month for each month of default. In all such cases, however, period of limitation provided in sub-section (3) of section 125 shall have to be borne in mind."
In Special Criminal Application No.897 of 2008, we may notice that for the unpaid maintenance for the period from 7.6.02 to 6.8.05, application under section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was made on 1.7.06. We may, however, leave the factual aspects to the learned single Judge to work out and confine ourselves to answering the reference made to the Larger Bench."
Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined
13. Considering, the reference answered by the Full Bench of this Court, it is required to consider the facts of the present case. It is an admitted position that initially, an application under the DV Act was preferred by the wife in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1265 of 2014 on 07.08.2015. The said application came to be partly allowed by the learned Magistrate on 03.05.2019 and ordered to pay Rs.6,000/- to wife and Rs.1,500/- each to both the children. The said judgment was challenged by the original petitioner-wife by preferring an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.107 of 2019 and the same was decided by the District Court on 12.04.2022, thereby enhancing the maintenance from Rs.9,000/- to Rs.75,000/- for the wife and two minor children. Thereafter, an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be preferred on 13.07.2022 by the wife. So, after the appeal has been decided, the amount of maintenance becomes due on 12.04.2022 when the appeal has been decided by the District Court and within 12 Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined months on 13.07.2022, the application has been given so, the application has been preferred within the limitation of 12 months from which it becomes due, considering the reference decided by the Larger Bench of this Court. The Magistrate has the power to award sentence up to a maximum of one month for each month of default committed by the person ordered to pay maintenance. The maximum limit of sentence of one month referred to Sub- Section (3) of 125 will be applicable for each month's default and the Magistrate can entertain and even entertain a common application for several months' default and pass appropriate order for sentence of defaulter person to a maximum of one month for each month of the default.
14. Therefore, considering the position of law, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, sentencing the present applicant to 540 days' simple imprisonment for default of maintenance of 54 months is just and proper. I do not find that any illegality committed by the Court below. Considering the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court, Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1158/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined the order of the learned Trial Court is just and proper and does not require any interference, as the said law has already been settled with respect to imposition of sentence by default for each month.
15. Accordingly, the present Revision Application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:41 IST 2025