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.
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
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 -
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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."
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
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,
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
