The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that a husband cannot be imprisoned for more than one month in a single application seeking recovery of maintenance arrears. The decision came in response to a petition challenging a trial court's order that sentenced a husband to an additional two months of civil imprisonment after he had already served one month for non-payment of maintenance.
Case Background
The case was brought before Justice Hemant Chandangoudar by the petitioner, Chandrashekhar, who contested the trial court's decision. The High Court reviewed the legal principles established in earlier rulings and quashed the additional imprisonment order, citing it as legally unsustainable.
Referring to the judgment in Shri Kallappa vs. Smt. Yallaubai, the High Court reiterated key legal principles. The court clarified that a person entitled to maintenance may file an application to recover arrears for either the entire amount due or separately for each month's allowance. However, if an application is filed for the total arrears, the imprisonment cannot extend beyond one month, unless the payment is made earlier. The judgment emphasized that successive applications may be filed for each month's maintenance, but a single application covering all arrears cannot lead to imprisonment exceeding one month.
Highlighting this precedent, the court stated:
"Confinement beyond the prescribed period for a single application claiming arrears of maintenance is illegal."
In this case, the wife of the petitioner had previously initiated proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to claim maintenance. The Family Court had granted maintenance, but when the petitioner failed to comply, the wife filed an application under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., leading to a one-month imprisonment order for non-compliance.
After the petitioner completed his sentence, the wife submitted another application, citing non-payment of arrears for 24 months. The Magistrate then sentenced him to an additional two months of imprisonment. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order, challenged it before the High Court.
Read Also:- Freedom of Satire Upheld: Karnataka High Court Dismisses FIR Against Students Over Alleged Offensive Skit
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating:
"The respondent initially filed an application for recovery of arrears of maintenance for 24 months, and the petitioner was sentenced to imprisonment for one month, which was in accordance with the law. However, the subsequent imprisonment order for the same arrears is legally unsustainable."
Accordingly, the High Court issued the following directives:
The criminal petition was allowed, and the order dated 25.09.2024, passed in Crim. Misc. No. 97/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gadag, was quashed. However, the court granted liberty to the respondent to file a fresh application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for any future maintenance claims.
This ruling reinforces an important aspect of maintenance law and ensures fairness in enforcement. It provides significant relief to individuals facing prolonged imprisonment due to repeated applications for the same arrears. Legal experts believe this judgment upholds due process in maintenance recovery cases while ensuring that justice is served in a legally sustainable manner.
