Surbhi Urf Ketki Golhani Sahu vs Ghanshyam Golhani Sahu

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56108
1 MCRC-40488-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
rd
ON THE 23 OF JULY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 40488 of 2024
SURBHI URF KETKI GOLHANI SAHU
Versus
GHANSHYAM GOLHANI SAHU
Appearance:
Shri Lal Ji Kushwaha - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Uday Kumar - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed challenging the legality, correctness
and validity of the order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned Fourth
Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.51/2024,
whereby the learned Revisional Court allowed the revision preferred by the
respondent-husband and set aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in M.J.C.R. No.4094/2021
directing issuance of recovery warrant and arrest warrant against the
respondent for recovery of maintenance.
2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent was solemnized on 14.05.2015 according to Hindu rites
and customs. According to the petitioner, after the marriage she was
subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-07-2026
12:49:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56108
2 MCRC-40488-2024
respondent and his family members and ultimately turned out of her

matrimonial home with a direction to return only after fulfilling the alleged
dowry demand. Since then she has been residing with her parents and has no
independent source of livelihood. On account of neglect and refusal on the
part of the respondent to maintain her, the petitioner instituted proceedings
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance.
By order dated 02.05.2019, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class
directed the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month
from the date of filing of the application. Alleging that the respondent failed
to comply with the said order, the petitioner filed an application under
Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the maintenance order. Thereafter,
by order dated 07.12.2023, the learned Magistrate directed issuance of
recovery warrant as well as arrest warrant against the respondent for
realization of the maintenance amount. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent
preferred Criminal Revision No.51/2024. The learned Fourth Additional
Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, allowed the
revision holding that the learned Magistrate had directed recovery of
maintenance beyond the statutory period contemplated under Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C. and further observed that the respondent's father had appeared before
the trial Court with the maintenance amount but the petitioner declined to
accept the same. Consequently, the order dated 07.12.2023 was set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
revisional order is contrary to law and defeats the very object of Section 125
Cr.P.C., which is a beneficial provision enacted to prevent destitution and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-07-2026
12:49:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56108
3 MCRC-40488-2024
vagrancy. It was argued that the respondent had deliberately and

continuously violated the maintenance order passed by the Magistrate and,
therefore, the learned Magistrate rightly exercised powers under Section
125(3) Cr.P.C. by issuing recovery warrant and warrant of arrest. It was
further submitted that the learned Revisional Court erred in holding that
recovery could not be ordered beyond one year, without appreciating that the
petitioner had already initiated execution proceedings and the same remained
pending because of the respondent's persistent default. Learned counsel also
submitted that while computing limitation, the period covered by the orders
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court extending limitation during the Covid-19
pandemic ought to have been excluded. It was further contended that mere
appearance of the respondent's father with some amount before the Court
could not absolve the respondent of his statutory obligation to comply with
the maintenance order. On these grounds, it was prayed that the impugned
revisional order be set aside and the order passed by the learned Magistrate
be restored.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the
impugned order and submitted that Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. clearly bars
issuance of warrant for recovery of maintenance beyond one year from the
date on which the amount became due. It is submitted that the Magistrate
exceeded his jurisdiction by directing recovery of arrears beyond the
permissible period. It is further argued that the respondent's father had
appeared before the Court with the maintenance amount but the petitioner
refused to receive the same and, therefore, the learned revisional Court
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-07-2026
12:49:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56108
4 MCRC-40488-2024
rightly held that issuance of coercive process against the respondent was

unwarranted. It is thus submitted that the impugned order does not warrant
interference.
5 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
record, this Court finds that the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide
immediate social justice to neglected wives, children and parents and to
prevent destitution and vagrancy. The provision is a beneficial piece of
legislation and must receive a purposive interpretation. Once an order
granting maintenance has attained finality, the husband is under a continuing
statutory obligation to comply with the same. Deliberate non-payment
cannot be encouraged by adopting a hyper-technical interpretation of the
procedural provisions governing enforcement.
6. The revisional Court proceeded on the premise that the learned
Magistrate had directed recovery of maintenance for a period exceeding one
year and therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue coercive process. Such
reasoning overlooks the distinction between the filing of an application for
enforcement and the continuation of execution proceedings. In the present
case, the petitioner had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for enforcement of the maintenance order. The
execution proceedings remained pending because of continued default on the
part of the respondent. Merely because the arrears accumulated during the
pendency of such proceedings would not render the recovery proceedings
non-maintainable. The revisional Court also failed to consider that the period
during which limitation stood suspended pursuant to the orders of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-07-2026
12:49:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56108
5 MCRC-40488-2024
Hon'ble Supreme Court on account of the Covid-19 pandemic was liable to

be excluded while computing the period of limitation. This important aspect
has been completely ignored.
7 . Equally untenable is the observation of the revisional Court that since
the respondent's father had appeared before the Court with the maintenance
amount and the petitioner declined to receive it, the Magistrate committed an
error in proceeding against the respondent. The statutory liability to comply
with the maintenance order is that of the respondent-husband. The record
does not disclose that the entire legally recoverable amount together with
compliance of the Court's directions had been satisfied before the Magistrate.
Mere appearance of a third person with some amount cannot wipe out the
respondent's continued default nor render the coercive process already
initiated by the Court illegal.
8. The learned Magistrate had exercised the jurisdiction vested in him after
recording satisfaction regarding persistent non-compliance of the
maintenance order. The revisional Court, while exercising limited revisional
jurisdiction, substituted its own view without recording any finding that the
Magistrate had acted without jurisdiction or contrary to law. The approach
adopted by the revisional Court defeats the very object of maintenance
proceedings and encourages deliberate non-compliance by a defaulting
husband.
9 . In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned
Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No.51/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-07-2026
12:49:08

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:56108
6 MCRC-40488-2024
suffers from patent legal infirmity and cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 29.04.2024
passed in Criminal Revision No.51/2024 is hereby set aside. Consequently,
the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Jabalpur in M.J.C.R. No.4094/2021 directing issuance of recovery
warrant and warrant of arrest for enforcement of the maintenance order is
restored.
11. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class shall proceed with the
execution proceedings in accordance with law and take all consequential
steps for realization of the maintenance amount payable to the petitioner,
after giving due credit to any amount, if any, already deposited or paid by the
respondent.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
rv

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: REENA
HIMANSHU SHARMA
Signing time: 30-07-2026
12:49:08