Husband’s liability to maintain family is absolute; sentencing for maintenance default is legally sustainable.

The applicant and Respondent No. 1 were married in 2002 and had two children (Respondents Nos. 2 and 3).

Following matrimonial disputes, the Family Court, Ahmedabad, awarded maintenance of ₹2,500 per month to the wife and ₹3,500 collectively to the children on May 14, 2013.

Upon the applicant’s failure to comply, the respondents filed a recovery application (Criminal Misc. Application No. 1202 of 2013) for arrears totaling ₹3,97,000.

On January 18, 2014, the applicant voluntarily surrendered before the Family Court, admitting his liability for 66 months of arrears but stating his inability to pay due to lack of assets.

Consequently, the Family Court sentenced him to 660 days of simple imprisonment.

The applicant sought to quash this order via the present revision application.

1. Whether the court can decide a criminal revision application on merits in the absence of the applicant or their advocate

2. Whether the Family Court's order sentencing the applicant to 660 days of imprisonment (10 days for each month of default) for non-payment of maintenance is disproportionate or illegal

3. Whether the impugned order suffers from patent error or miscarriage of justice warranting the exercise of revisional jurisdiction

The Court primarily applied Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the court to sentence a person to imprisonment for non-compliance with maintenance orders.

It relied on Taj Mohammad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) to proceed in the absence of the applicant based on available record.

The Court further applied the principles from Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015), which establishes the legal, ethical, and social duty of a husband to provide financial support to his wife and children.

Finally, it followed Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, which is restricted to correcting patent errors or miscarriages of justice.

The Court observed that despite being served notice after his advocate's withdrawal, the applicant failed to appear, justifying a decision on merits based on the record per Taj Mohammad.

In examining the proceedings below, the Court found that the applicant had voluntarily admitted his liability for ₹3,97,000 across 66 months and explicitly stated his inability and unwillingness to pay.

The Court reasoned that since the applicant surrendered and admitted the default, the Family Court’s calculation of 10 days of simple imprisonment for each month of default was not disproportionate.

The Court emphasized that maintenance is a social and lawful duty that a husband cannot shirk.

Applying the Amit Kapoor standard, the Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any patent error, as the Family Court had provided proper reasoning and the applicant had waived his right to seek further time for payment.

The Court held that the sentence of 660 days for 66 months of default was legally sound and that no grounds existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower court.

The application was dismissed with no relief granted to the applicant.