TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure). As the Respondent-husband had not complied with the order of payment, in a miscellaneous petition, i.e., C.M.P. No. 566/1998 filed by the Appellant, the trial court by its order dated 21.07.1998 had sentenced the Respondent to imprisonment. The default in payment of maintenance was for the period 4.2.1993 to 4.2.1998. On 5.2.2002 another miscellaneous application (Crl. M.P. No. 394/2002) was filed by the Appellants claiming maintenance for the period 4.2.1993 to 5.2.2002. The same was allowed by the learned Magistrate on 31.12.2002 against which the Respondent had filed Crl. R.C. No. 620/2003. The High Court by its order dated 21.4.2004 held that as Crl. M.P. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overy of maintenance Under Section 125(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 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 and Anr. (1989) 1 SCC 405 may be usefully recalled wherein this Court has held the provision of sentencing Under Section 125(3) to be a mode of enforcement as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears. 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 ari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 21.04.2004 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 (M.C. No. 1/1993) i.e. 4.2.1993 within a period of six months and current ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
