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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
