Madras High Court
Muthuraj vs Lakshmi on 22 November, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.28 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 26.09.2023
Pronounced on : 22.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.RC.(MD).No.28 of 2022
Muthuraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
Lakshmi ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.91
of 2018, in M.C.No.27 of 2008, dated 05.10.2021, filed by the
respondent on the file of the Family Court, Nagercoil.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Mohan Gandhi
For respondent : Mr.S.Xavior Rajini
ORDER
The Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2018 in M.C.No.27 of 2008, dated
05.10.2021 filed by the respondent on the file of the Family Court,
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The petitioner who is the husband filed this Criminal Revision
Case, challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.91 of 2018, in M.C.No.
27 of 2008, to enforce the arrears of amount.
3. The respondent/wife filed a maintenance petition in M.C.No.27
of 2008, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil,
and the same was allowed by order dated 05.03.2009, granting a sum of
Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance. Thereafter, the petitioner did not pay
any maintenance amount as per the order dated 05.03.2009. Therefore,
the respondent herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.579 of 2009 in
M.C.No.27 of 2008, for enforcement of order of maintenance. However,
the petitioner herein did not make any payment for maintenance.
Thereafter, the respondent herein filed C.M.P.No.91 of 2018 in M.C.No.
27 of 2008 and as per the order of the learned Judge, Family Court,
Nagercoil, the petitioner herein was produced on 05.10.2023, for
execution of N.B.W, issued by the Court below. On that day, the learned
Judge, Family Court, Nagercoil, convicted the petitioner and sentenced
him to undergo 11 months of Simple Imprisonment under Section 125(3)
of Cr.P.C., for his failure to pay the maintenance amount to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent as per the order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner herein filed this Criminal
Revision Case before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
Section 125(B), the learned trial Judge has no jurisdiction to impose 11
month simple imprisonment. He has a jurisdiction only to impose one
month of simple imprisonment and the execution petition filed by the
respondent for more than a period of one year is not maintainable, for
which, he relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shjahada Khatoon and others Vs. Amjad Ali and others
reported in 1999 SCC(Crl.) 1029 and in the case of Mehboob Basha Vs.
Nannima @ Hajara Bibi and another reported in 2005 (1) law weekly
(Crl.) 384, and in the case of R.Rajesh Vs. Kalaiyarasi reported in 2017
(3) MWN (Cr.) 216. On the basis of that, he submitted that imposing
imprisonment of 11 months is not in accordance with law and he seeks to
allow this Case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
learned trial Judge considering the conduct of the petitioner, passed the
impugned order of imposing the sentence of 11 months simple
imprisonment and he also stated that the impugned order passed by the
Court below was in accordance with law.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made on either side
and perused the materials available in records and also the precedents
relied upon by them.
7. The marriage was held between the petitioner and the
respondent/wife on 23.05.2004 as per the Hindu Rights and Customs.
Due to some disputes between them, the respondent started to live
separately from 25.12.2004. Thereafter, in the year of 2007, the
petitioner filed a divorce petition in H.M.O.P.No.135 of 2007 before the
Subordinate Court, Thoothukudi. During the pendency of the divorce
petition, the respondent filed a maintenance case in M.C.No.27 of 2008
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Nagercoil. The learned Judicial Magistrate, passed the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 05.03.2009 and awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to the
respondent for monthly maintenance and directed the petitioner to pay
the monthly maintenance to the respondent from 25.11.2008 onwards.
However, the petitioner did not make any payment. Therefore, the
respondent herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.579 of 2009 before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil. The learned trial Judge,
passed the following order, dated 18.05.2009:
The above named petitioner humble
submits as follows:
(1) The petitioner and the respondent are
husband and wife. The petitioner filed a petition
before this Court as M.C.No.27 of 2008 praying
for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
(2) After the full and effective adjudication
of the case, on 05.03.2009, this Curt passed an
order directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.
3,000/- per month to the petitioner.
(3) The Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass
the following order:
Kbthf ,k;kD mDkjpf;fg;gl;L
kDjhuUf;F khjk; xd;Wf;F U.3000 tPjk;
kD Njjpahd 25.11.2008 Kjy; vjph;kDjhuu;
nfhLj;jpl Ntz;Lnkd;W cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cj;jutplg;gl;l njhifia xt;nthU khjk;
Kbe;Jk; mLj;J tUk; khjk; Kjy; VO
ehl;fSf;Fs; vjph;kDjhuu; kDjhuUf;F
gztpil Kykhf mDg;gp itf;f Ntz;Lk;
vd;Wk; cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.
(4) The petitioner stated that the
respondent has got the knowledge of the
contention of the order passed by this court dated
05.03.2009 but he has purposely evading to pay
the maintenance amount and not complied the
order of the Court even after the lapses of more
than 2 months time. There is no appeal or stay
against the order of this Court.
(5) The respondent is having sufficient
income and having considerable movable and
immovable properties for his own to pay
maintenance. The respondent is a business man
and money lender earning more than Rs.25,000/-
per month but he is wantonly and willfully not
paying the maintenance award passed by this
Court.
(6) In the above circumstances, it is most
humbly prayed that this Court may be pleaded to
direct the respondent to pay the arrears of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
maintenance at the rate of Rs.18,000/- (ie., from
25.11.2008 to 24.05.2009) and further
maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month if the
respondent fails to pay the amount hence, this
Court may be pleased to pass an order of arrest
of the respondent and realize the said amount
form him and his assets. Otherwise, I will be put
to irreparable loss and injury which can not
compensated in any manner.
(7) Hence, it is most humbly prayed that
this Court may be pleased to pass an order direct
the respondent to pay the arrears of maintenance
of Rs.18,000/- and future maintenance Rs.3,000/-
per month. If he fails to pay the amount pass an
order of arrest of the respondent and realize the
amount from him and his assets thus render
justice.
8. Despite the order passed by the learned trial Judge, the
petitioner did not comply with the direction. Therefore, the respondent
herein filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.91 of 2018, in which, the petitioner
did not receive the notice and the same was returned as unclaimed.
Hence, Non Bailable Warrant was issued on 29.04.2010. The said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
warrant was executed only on 29.08.2017. On that day, he paid a sum of
Rs.18,000/- and at his request, the case was adjourned for payment of
balance amount on 08.09.2017. But the petitioner did not appear before
the trial Court. Therefore, on 28.09.2017, non-bailable warrant was
issued, pursuant to which, the petitioner was produced on 05.10.2021
and on the same day, the learned trial Judge passed the following order:
The respondent is produced on execution of
N.B.W issued by this Court. This petition to recover
the arrears of maintenance amount has been filed by
the petitioner on 18.05.2009 under Section 125(3)
and 128 of Criminal Procedure Code to recover the
maintenance arrears of Rs.18,000/- between the
period of 25.11.2008 and 24.09.2009 as per the order
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil in
M.C.No.27 of 2008 dated 05.03.2009 and also the
future maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per
month as per the above order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, the respondent so far paid Rs.28,000/-
only. He has to pay the remaining arrears of Rs.
4,32,000/-. The petitioner is unable to give any valid
explanation for the non payment of arrears. This
petition is filed within one year form the date on
which the amount was due. When the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
failed to pay the arrears claimed in the execution
petition there is no legal necessity for the petitioner
to file successive execution petitions as she claimed
future maintenance also in this petition itself. The
records reveals that already respondent was arrested
and produced before the Court on 08.09.2017 and he
paid Rs.18,000/- on that date and agreed to pay the
remaining amount shortly. Believing his
representation he was released, but he failed to fulfil
his promise. Thereafter the respondent failed to pay
any money to the petitioner. Considering the facts
and circumstances, the respondent is sentence to
undergo imprisonment for a period of 11 months
under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., for his failure to pay
the maintenance amount to the petitioner as per the
order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
The same was challenged by the petitioner before this Court, by way of
filing this Criminal Revision Case.
9. Now the question is whether the Court below is right in ordering
that the petitioner is to undergo imprisonment for a period of 11 months
under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., for his failure to pay the maintenance
amount?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The said question is no longer res integra in view of the
pronouncement of the following judgments:
11. Even before that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt
Kuldip Kaur Vs. Surinder Singh and another reported in (1989) 1 SCC
405 has held as follows:
6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of
enforcing recovery on the one hand and effecting
actual recovery of the amount of monthly allowance
which has fallen in arrears on the other. Sentencing a
person to jail is a “mode of enforcement”. It is not a
“mode of satisfaction” of the liability. The liability
can be satisfied only by making actual payment of the
arrears. The whole purpose of sending to jail is to
oblige a person liable to pay the monthly allowance
who refuses to comply with the order without
sufficient cause, to obey the order and to make the
payment. The purpose of sending him to jail is not to
wipe out the liability which he has refused to
discharge. Be it also realised that a person ordered to
pay monthly allowance can be sent to jail only if he
fails to pay monthly allowance “without sufficient
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cause” to comply with the order. It would indeed be
strange to hold that a person who “without
reasonable cause” refuses to comply with the order of
the court to maintain his neglected wife or child
would be absolved of his liability merely because he
prefers to go to jail. A sentence of jail is no substitute
for the recovery of the amount of monthly allowance
which has fallen in arrears. Monthly allowance is
paid in order to enable the wife and child to live by
providing with the essential economic wherewithal.
Neither the neglected wife nor the neglected child can
live without funds for purchasing food and the
essential articles to enable them to live. Instead of
providing them with the funds, no useful purpose
would be served by sending the husband to jail.
Sentencing to jail is the means for achieving the end
of enforcing the order by recovering the amount of
arrears. It is not a mode of discharging liability. The
section does not say so. Parliament in its wisdom has
not said so. Commonsense does not support such a
construction. From where does the court draw
inspiration for persuading itself that the liability
arising under the order for maintenance would stand
discharged upon an effort being made to recover it?
The order for monthly allowance can be discharged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only upon the monthly allowance being recovered.
The liability cannot be taken to have been discharged
by sending the person liable to pay the monthly
allowance, to jail. At the cost of repetition it may be
stated that it is only a mode or method of recovery
and not a substitute for recovery. No other view is
possible. That is the reason why we set aside the
order under appeal and passed an order in the
following terms:
Heard both the sides.
The appeal is allowed. The order passed by the
learned Magistrate as confirmed by the High Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction to the effect that
the amount of monthly allowance payable under
Section 125 of the CrPC is wiped out and is not
recoverable any more by reason of the fact that
respondent No. 1, Surinder Singh, was sent to jail in
exercise of the powers under Section 125 of the CrPC
is set aside. In our opinion, respondent No. 1,
husband of appellant, is not absolved from his
liability to pay the monthly allowance by reason of his
undergoing a sentence of jail and the amount is still
recoverable notwithstanding the fact that the
respondent No.1 husband who is liable to pay he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
monthly allowance has undergone a sentence of jail
for failure to pay the same. Our reasons for reaching
this conclusion will follow.
So far as the amount of monthly allowance awarded
in this particular case is concerned, by consent of
parties, we pass the following order in regard to
future payments with effect from 15th August, 1986.
We direct that Respondent No. 1, Surinder Singh shall
pay Rs. 273 (Rs.200 for the wife and Rs. 75 for the
child) as and by way of maintenance to the appellant
Smt. Kuldip Kaur commencing from August 15, 1986.
The amount of Rs. 275 shall be paid by the 15th of
every succeeding month. On failure to pay any
monthly allowance for any month hereafter on the
part of respondent No. 1, Surinder Singh, the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate shall issue a warrant for his
arrest, cause him to be arrested and put in jail for his
failure to comply with this Court's order and he shall
not be released till he makes the payment.
With regard to the arrears which have become due till
August 15, 1986, learned Counsel for the appellant
states that having regard to the fact that respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No. 1, has agreed to the aforesaid consent order, the
appellant will not apply for the respondent being sent
to jail under Section 125 of the CrPC but will reserve
the liberty to realize the said amount (Rs.5090 plus
the difference between the amount that became due
and the amount actually paid under the interim order)
under the law except by seeking an order for sending
respondent No. 1 to jail.
The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.
In the case of Shantha v. B.G. Shivananjappa, reported in (2005) 4 SCC
8.We are, therefore, of the view that in the
peculiar circumstances of the case, the bar under
Section 125(3) cannot be applied and the High
Court has erred in reversing the order of the
Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that
Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social
legislation and it has to be construed liberally for
the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It
is unreasonable to insist on filing successive
applications when the liability to pay the
maintenance as per the order passed under
Section 125(1) is a continuing liability.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Further, in the case of Poongodi v. Thangavel, reported in (2013) 10
SCC 618 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
4. A reading of the order dated 21-4-2004
[Thangavel v. Poongodi, Criminal Revision No. 620
of 2003, order dated 21-4-2004 (Mad)] passed by
the High Court would go to show that the proviso to
Section 125(3) CrPC has been construed by the
High Court to be a fetter on the entitlement of the
claimants to receive arrears of maintenance beyond
a period of one year preceding the date of filing of
the application under Section 125(3) CrPC. Having
considered the said provision of the Code we do not
find that the same creates a bar or in any way
affects the entitlement of a claimant to arrears of
maintenance. What the proviso contemplates is that
the procedure for recovery of maintenance under
Section 125(3) CrPC, namely, by construing the
same to be a levy of a fine and the detention of the
defaulter in custody would not be available to a
claimant who had slept over his/her rights and has
not approached the court within a period of one
year commencing from the date on which the
entitlement to receive maintenance has accrued.
However, in such a situation the ordinary remedy to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
recover the amount of maintenance, namely, a civil
action would still be available.
5. The decision of this Court in Kuldip
Kaur v. Surinder Singh [(1989) 1 SCC 405 : 1989
SCC (Cri) 171] may be usefully recalled wherein
this Court has held the provision of sentencing
under Section 125(3) to be a “mode of enforcement”
as distinguished from the “mode of satisfaction” of
the liability which can only be by means of actual
payment. Para 6 of the Report to the above effect,
namely, that the mode of enforcement i.e. sentencing
to custody does not extinguish the liability may be
extracted below: (SCC p. 409, para 6)
“6. A distinction has to be drawn between a mode of
enforcing recovery on the one hand and effecting
actual recovery of the amount of monthly allowance
which has fallen in arrears on the other. Sentencing
a person to jail is a ‘mode of enforcement’. It is not
a ‘mode of satisfaction’ of the liability. The liability
can be satisfied only by making actual payment of
the arrears. The whole purpose of sending to jail is
to oblige a person liable to pay the monthly
allowance who refuses to comply with the order
without sufficient cause, to obey the order and to
make the payment. The purpose of sending him to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jail is not to wipe out the liability which he has
refused to discharge. Be it also realised that a
person ordered to pay monthly allowance can be
sent to jail only if he fails to pay monthly allowance
‘without sufficient cause’ to comply with the order.
It would indeed be strange to hold that a person who
‘without reasonable cause’ refuses to comply with
the order of the court to maintain his neglected wife
or child would be absolved of his liability merely
because he prefers to go to jail. A sentence of jail is
no substitute for the recovery of the amount of
monthly allowance which has fallen in arrears.
Monthly allowance is paid in order to enable the
wife and child to live by providing with the essential
economic wherewithal. Neither the neglected wife
nor the neglected child can live without funds for
purchasing food and the essential articles to enable
them to live. Instead of providing them with the
funds, no useful purpose would be served by sending
the husband to jail. Sentencing to jail is the means
for achieving the end of enforcing the order by
recovering the amount of arrears. It is not a mode of
discharging liability. The section does not say so.
Parliament in its wisdom has not said so.
Commonsense does not support such a construction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
From where does the court draw inspiration for
persuading itself that the liability arising under the
order for maintenance would stand discharged upon
an effort being made to recover it? The order for
monthly allowance can be discharged only upon the
monthly allowance being recovered. The liability
cannot be taken to have been discharged by sending
the person liable to pay the monthly allowance, to
jail. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that it
is only a mode or method of recovery and not a
substitute for recovery. No other view is possible.
That is the reason why we set aside the order under
appeal and passed an order in the following terms
….”
6. In another decision of this Court
in Shantha v. B.G. Shivananjappa [(2005) 4 SCC
468 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1089] it has been held that the
liability to pay maintenance under Section 125
CrPC is in the nature of a continuing liability. The
nature of the right to receive maintenance and the
concomitant liability to pay was also noticed in a
decision of this Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad
Ali [(1999) 5 SCC 672 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1029] .
Though in a slightly different context, the remedy to
approach the court by means of successive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
applications under Section 125(3) CrPC
highlighting the subsequent defaults in payment of
maintenance was acknowledged by this Court
in Shahada Khatoon [(1999) 5 SCC 672 : 1999 SCC
(Cri) 1029] .
7. The ratio of the decisions in the aforesaid cases
squarely applies to the present case. The application
dated 5-2-2002 filed by the appellants under Section
125(3) was in continuation of the earlier
applications and for subsequent periods of default
on the part of the respondent. The first proviso to
Section 125(3), therefore did not extinguish or limit
the entitlement of the appellants to the maintenance
granted by the learned trial court, as has been held
by the High Court.
8. In view of the above, we are left in no doubt
that the order passed by the High Court needs to be
interfered with by us which we accordingly do. The
order dated 21-4-2004 [Thangavel v. Poongodi,
Criminal Revision No. 620 of 2003, order dated
21-4-2004 (Mad)] of the High Court is set aside and
we now issue directions to the respondent to pay the
entire arrears of maintenance due to the appellants
commencing from the date of filing of the
maintenance petition (MC No. 1 of 1993) i.e.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4-2-1993 within a period of six months and current
maintenance commencing from the month of
September 2013 payable on or before 7-10-2013
and thereafter continue to pay the monthly
maintenance on or before the 7th of each successive
month. If the above order of this Court is not
complied with by the respondent, the learned trial
court is directed to issue a warrant for the arrest of
the respondent and ensure that the same is executed
and the respondent taken into custody to suffer
imprisonment as provided by Section 125(3) CrPC.
This Hon'ble Court Division Bench reported in 2019 (1) MLJ (Crl) 513
in the case of M.Rajkumar @ Muthaiah vs. Commissioner, Madurai
City and others (H.C.P.(MD).SR No.31625 of 2018).
33. Thus, in the light of the above judgment
of the Honourable Full Bench of the Gujarat High
Court, the legal position is very clear that the
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,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sentence a defaulting person upto a maximum one
month for each month of default.
34. In the case on hand, the mother of the
minor respondents 3 and 4 filed a petition on
26.03.2010 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in M.C.No.
33 of 2010 seeking maintainance for the minor
respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Judge,
Family Court, Madurai, by order dated
23.02.2017, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each
per month towards 36 maintenance to the minor
respondents 3 and 4. However, the petitioner
committed default in paying the maintenance of
Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) each
per month to the minor respondents 3 and 4 for 83
months. Hence, the mother of the minor
respondents 3 and 4 had filed a petition under
Section 128 Cr.P.C., for recovery of arrears of
maintenance for 83 months well within the
limitation period of one year from the date on
which it became due, viz., 23.02.2017, on which
date, the award of maintenance came to be passed
in M.C.No.33 of 2010 and the learned Judge,
Family Court, Madurai, thought it fit to impose a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sentence of 15 days for each month's default and
accordingly, by order dated 29.06.2017 ordered
the petitioner to undergo 15 days simple
imprisonment for one month's default, totalling 41
½ months for non-payment of arrears for 83
months and thus, in the light of the judgment of
the Honourable Full Bench of the Gujarat High
Court in Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat reported in
II (2009) DMC 197 (FB), we find no infirmity in
the impugned order dated 29.06.2017 passed by
the learned Judge, Family Court, Madurai, in
Cr.M.P.No.97 of 2017 in M.C.No.33 of 2010, in
and by which, the petitioner was ordered to
undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for one
month's default, totalling 41 ½ months for non-
payment of arrears for 83 months. Therefore,
Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
Further, the learned Judge of this Court, in Crl.R.C.(MD).No.581 of
2022 also held as follows:
10.There is no doubt on that, as mentioned
earlier, the execution petition can be filed within a
year from the date of the order of the original
petition. Here, as mentioned earlier, there is no
bar of limitation. But the argument that only one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
month maximum period can be imposed is
completely out of place and not acceptable in view
of the change of views. More particularly, we can
refer the decision of the Division Bench of this
court in the case of M.Rajkumar Vs.
Commissioner, Madurai City, Madurai & others
(HCP (MD)SR No.31625 of 2018, dated
09/01/2019). After elaborate discussion, that
judgment was rendered in a Habeas Corpus
Petition. After considering all the relevant
judgments including the judgment that has been
cited by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in the case of Shahada Khatoon and
anothers Vs. Amjad Ali and others [(1999)5 SCC
672). so we need not trouble much this order upon
the above said controversy, since it has been now
well settled by the Division Bench of this court.
The view that has been expressed by this court
prior to the Division Bench decision in the case of
R.Kumaravadivel Vs. Lakshmi and others (CDJ
2007 MHC 1600), now it cannot be taken
advantage by this petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. From the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and this Court and various High Courts, it is clear that
(i) The Court has power to impose the sentence of imprisonment
against the husband who commit default in making the payment of
arrears of maintenance till the payment is made.
(ii) The wife need not file a successive application to enforce the
maintenance award. She can file an application to enforce the entire
arrears of maintenance.
13. Hence, in view of the above Hon'ble Division Bench judgment,
this Court is unable to accept the contention of the petitioner, on the
basis of the judgment reported in 2017 3 MWN Crl.216 that the Court
has no jurisdiction to impose the punishment of 11 months simple
imprisonment.
14. Earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner herein is ready to deposit the entire arrears of monthly
maintenance amount and prayed to suspend the sentence. On the basis of
the undertaking given by the petitioner, this Court granted the suspension
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of sentence and also directed the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of
amount. Subsequently, he filed modification petition and the same was
modified. Even after, he did not make any payment. In the said
circumstances, on factual aspects, the petitioner has failed to comply
with the maintenance amount. Therefore, the petitioner herein is directed
to pay the entire arrears of amount within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. On his failure, the jurisdictional
police are directed to secure the petitioner and confine in prison till the
payment of entire arrears of amount.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
22.11.2023
NCC :Yes / No
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
sbn
To
The Family Court,
Nagercoil.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
