Gujarat High Court
Anooj Balkrishna Agarwal vs State Of Gujarat on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (FOR MAINTENANCE) NO. 1157
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 Family Court Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined No. 8, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2023 of 2023, whereby the present applicant-original respondent has been sentenced to undergo 940 days' simple imprisonment for recovery of the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,18,35,000/- @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per month towards arrears of 95 months and, in default of every month's payment, 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 Family Court and sent 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 the filing of the present application are that respondent No. 4 - original petitioner had initially filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 2075 of 2015 on 13.08.2015 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") for the relief to get maintenance for herself and her minor children before the Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined Court and the said application came to be allowed by the learned Family Court No.8, Ahmedabad by order dated 12.07.2023, granting maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 25,000/- per month from 13.08.2015 and also directing to pay Rs. 50,000/- each to the minor daughter and minor son from 13.08.2015, in all Rs. 1,25,000/- per month, and also awarding cost of Rs. 10,000/- of the proceedings.
5. Further, being aggrieved by the said order, the present applicant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 945 of 2023 before this Court, which is pending for adjudication. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 - original petitioner wife preferred an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 2023 of 2023 before the Family Court, Ahmedabad, seeking recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period from 13.08.2015, i.e., the date of filing of the main application under Section 125 of the Code, till 12.07.2023, i.e. the date of the order, amounting to Rs.1,18,35,000/- towards arrears of maintenance @ Rs.1,25,000/- per month for 95 Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined months.
6. The said application came to be decided by the Family Court vide order dated 13.06.2024, whereby the present applicant was sentenced to undergo 940 days' simple imprisonment for default in payment of arrears of maintenance for 95 months and further directed to undergo 10 days' simple imprisonment for every month's default, in all totaling 940 days' simple imprisonment, which order is under challenge in the present application.
7. Heard the original applicant, appearing as party-in- person through video conferencing from Sabarmati Central Jail, Ahmedabad. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay 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 has been held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the learned Family Court, under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot order imprisonment for more Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined than 12 months' default in maintenance in a single application and this principle has been settled by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. It is further submitted that the application under Section 125 of the Code came to be partly allowed on 12.07.2023 and the same is under challenge in another Revision Application before this Court. It is further submitted that an application under Section 125(3) of the Code has been preferred for recovery of arrears of maintenance for 95 months. It is further submitted that a single application cannot be maintained for default of more than 12 months and that, for every block of 12 months' default, a separate application will have to be filed and the Family Court may impose imprisonment only up to 12 months, which is the outer limit as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Therefore, it is submitted that considering the aforesaid settled legal position, the order passed by the learned Family Court, sentencing the present applicant to undergo 940 days' simple imprisonment, is contrary to law and requires to be set aside.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined
8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, appearing for respondent No. 4 - wife, has vehemently opposed the application and submitted that the order passed by the learned Family Court, sentencing the present applicant to undergo 940 days' simple imprisonment, is just and proper and does not require any interference. Learned advocate, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in Criminal Reference No. 2 of 2008 in Suo Motu vs. State of Gujarat, decided on 30.09.2008 and submitted that as per the reference answered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, it is open to the Family Court to award sentence up to a maximum of one month for each month of default committed by the person ordered to pay maintenance and the maximum limit of one month's sentence referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code will apply to each month of default. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the settled legal position, the Family Court can pass an Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined order of sentence of up to one month for every month of default and thus, the impugned order is absolutely just and proper and does not require any interference.
9. Learned A.P.P., Mr.H.K. Patel on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 submitted that necessary order is required to be passed.
10. Heard the party-in-person applicant and the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. The short facts of the case have already been narrated hereinabove. 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 attracted in light of the facts of the present case, it is necessary to reproduce the said provision, 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 Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined 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 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."
11. In the present case, the main argument of the applicant is that the Family Court cannot pass a sentence of more than 12 months, and for that, he is relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. In this regard, it would be 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 has been held as under:
"In this reference, following question has been referred to the Full Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined "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.
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, Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined 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."
12. Considering the reference answered by the Full Bench of this Court, the facts of the present case are required to be considered. It is an admitted position that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to be filed by respondent No. 4 - wife on 13.08.2015 for maintenance being Criminal Misc. Application No. 2075 of 2015. The said application came to be partly allowed by the learned Family Court on 12.07.2023, directing the present applicant - original respondent to pay Rs. 25,000/- per month to the wife and Rs. 50,000/- each to the minor son and minor daughter per month from the date of the application i.e. 13.08.2015, in all Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. It is an admitted position that the said amount was not paid. Hence, respondent No. 4 - original petitioner wife moved Criminal Misc. Application No. 2023 of 2023 under Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Ahmedabad. It is further an admitted position that the main application under Section 125 came to be decided by the Court on 12.07.2023 and thereafter, within 12 months, the application for recovery of arrears of maintenance came to be filed on 14.08.2023. Thus, the amount of maintenance became due pursuant to the judgment and order dated 12.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2075 of 2015 and within about one month thereafter, the application under Section 125(3) came to be filed. Considering the reference decided by the Larger Bench of this Court, the learned Family Court 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 one month's sentence referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 125 will be applicable for each month of default and the learned Family Court can even entertain a common application for several months' default and pass an appropriate order of sentence against the defaulter to a maximum of one month for each Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1157/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/09/2025 undefined month of default.
13. Considering the position of law, the order passed by the learned Family Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2023 of 2023, sentencing the present applicant for 940 days' simple imprisonment for default of maintenance of 94 months is just and proper. I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the Court below. Considering the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court, the order of the Family 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.
14. Accordingly, the present Revision Application is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged.
(L. S. PIRZADA, J) Hitesh Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by PANCHAL HITESHKUMAR JAGDISHBHAI(HC00195) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 23:23:36 IST 2025