1999 JTR(SC) 446
2000 1 AICLR 792 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 4880 ; 2000 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 305 ; 2001 1 AllCJ 843 ; 1999 3 CivCC 522 ; 1999 CrLJ 5060 ; 2000 1 DMC 313 ; 2000 1 EastCrC(SC) 390 ; 2000 1 HinduLR 315 ; 1999 10 JT 260 ; 2000 1 KLT 696 ; 1999 3 MhLJ(SC) 290 ; 2000 2 MPHT 1 ; 1999 2 MPLJ 448 ; 2000 3 RLW(Raj) 414 ; 1999 5 SCC 672 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 1029 ; 2000 KHC 128 ; 1999 9 Supreme 396
1999(9) Supreme 396
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik and M.B. Shah, JJ.
Shahada Khatoon and Others -Appellants
versus
Amjad Ali and Others -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1996
Decided on 7-4-1999
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the Magistrate cannot impose sentence continuing a person, not complying with order of maintenance, in custody until payment is made; Magistrate can impose a sentence which may not extend for more than one month.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.125(3)
NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT : S.60(3)
(A) The provisions of Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act govern the scope of punitive action available to a Magistrate when addressing non-compliance with an order for monetary maintenance. The court examines the interplay between these statutes to interpret the limits on custodial sentencing for default in payment, emphasizing the statutory cap on imprisonment duration.
(B) The liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 is a continuing obligation, but the law explicitly restricts the Magistrates power to impose imprisonment to a maximum term of one month or the period equivalent to the arrears, whichever is shorter. This constraint is strictly jurisdictional and cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation to permit extended detention for ongoing breaches.
Facts of the case:
A wife sought enforcement of a maintenance order against her husband. The Magistrate imposed a sentence of one month or until payment, which the husband challenged on the grounds that the order allowed for cumulative or extended imprisonment for non-payment beyond the statutory limit.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., holding that the language of the provision is clear and circumscribes the Magistrates power to impose imprisonment strictly within the defined limits. The court found no basis to enlarge the punishment beyond the statutory maximum, thereby upholding the original impugned order.
Issues:
Whether the Magistrate is empowered to sentence a husband to imprisonment extending beyond one month on account of continued non-payment of maintenance in violation of a maintenance order.
Ratio Decidendi:
The statutory language of Section 125(3) is clear and restrictive; it limits the Magistrates sentencing power to one month or until payment, if sooner made, and this jurisdictional boundary cannot be altered by judicial fiat, making any extended imprisonment impermissible.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
(A) The provisions of Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act govern the scope of punitive action available to a Magistrate when addressing non-compliance with an order for monetary maintenance. The court examines the interplay between these statutes to interpret the limits on custodial sentencing for default in payment, emphasizing the statutory cap on imprisonment duration.
(B) The liability to pay maintenance under Section 125 is a continuing obligation, but the law explicitly restricts the Magistrates power to impose imprisonment to a maximum term of one month or the period equivalent to the arrears, whichever is shorter. This constraint is strictly jurisdictional and cannot be expanded by judicial interpretation to permit extended detention for ongoing breaches.
Facts of the case:
A wife sought enforcement of a maintenance order against her husband. The Magistrate imposed a sentence of one month or until payment, which the husband challenged on the grounds that the order allowed for cumulative or extended imprisonment for non-payment beyond the statutory limit.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., holding that the language of the provision is clear and circumscribes the Magistrates power to impose imprisonment strictly within the defined limits. The court found no basis to enlarge the punishment beyond the statutory maximum, thereby upholding the original impugned order.
Issues:
Whether the Magistrate is empowered to sentence a husband to imprisonment extending beyond one month on account of continued non-payment of maintenance in violation of a maintenance order.
Ratio Decidendi:
The statutory language of Section 125(3) is clear and restrictive; it limits the Magistrates sentencing power to one month or until payment, if sooner made, and this jurisdictional boundary cannot be altered by judicial fiat, making any extended imprisonment impermissible.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed.
ORDER
The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by directing that the Magistrate can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the liability of the husband arising out of an order passed under Section 125 to make payment of maintenance is a continuing one and on account of non-payment there has been a breach of the order and therefore the Magistrate would be entitled to impose sentence on such a person continuing him in custody until payment is made. We are unable to accept his contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The language of sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore the only remedy would be after expiry of one month for breach or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
*************
Parallel Citations of other Jounals :
Shahada Khatoon and Others v. Amjad Ali and Others, 1999(9) Supreme 396
00019