Maintenance default cannot attract imprisonment exceeding one month; arrears remain recoverable.

The petitioner-husband’s wife and minor son obtained a maintenance order dated 19.03.2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., directing him to pay ₹4,000 per month—₹2,000 each to the wife and son—from 10.02.2022, the date of filing of the maintenance application.

The petitioner did not comply, claiming that he lacked the means to pay, and the respondents initiated execution proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.

The Family Court, Khowai, subsequently sentenced him by order dated 04.02.2025 to simple imprisonment for two years and eleven months for default in payment of maintenance arrears amounting to ₹2,10,000.

The maintenance order itself had not been challenged and had attained finality.

The petitioner challenged only the legality of the term of imprisonment in the present revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

Whether a court executing a maintenance order under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 144(3) BNSS, may sentence the defaulter to imprisonment exceeding one month for arrears of maintenance.

Whether imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance extinguishes the defaulter’s continuing liability to pay the arrears.

Whether the Family Court’s order sentencing the petitioner to two years and eleven months was legally sustainable.

The court applied Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 144(3) BNSS, which permits imprisonment for a breach of a maintenance order for a term up to one month, or until payment if made earlier, after execution of a warrant for levying the amount due.

Relying on Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali, (1999) 5 SCC 672, the court held that the statutory power cannot be enlarged to impose imprisonment exceeding one month, though successive proceedings may be initiated for subsequent defaults.

Under Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 405, imprisonment is only a mode of enforcing recovery and does not satisfy or extinguish the maintenance liability.

Poongodi v. Thangavel, (2013) 10 SCC 618, reaffirmed that maintenance liability is continuing, that imprisonment does not discharge arrears, and that subsequent defaults may be pursued through appropriate proceedings.

The court further directed recovery in accordance with Section 421 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 461 BNSS.

The original maintenance order was final and the petitioner’s default was undisputed; therefore, the High Court did not reopen the correctness of the maintenance determination.

However, Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. expressly limits imprisonment for each breach to a maximum of one month, and the Supreme Court in Shahada Khatoon had categorically held that a magistrate cannot impose imprisonment for more than one month by aggregating arrears into a longer custodial sentence.

Accordingly, sentencing the petitioner to two years and eleven months for ₹2,10,000 in arrears exceeded the statutory authority of the Family Court.

At the same time, consistent with Kuldip Kaur and Poongodi, the petitioner’s release from imprisonment would not wipe out his maintenance liability; the arrears remained recoverable through the statutory recovery mechanism under Sections 421 Cr.P.C./461 BNSS or through appropriate civil proceedings.

It accordingly set aside and quashed the order dated 04.02.2025 sentencing him to two years and eleven months.

The Family Court was directed to issue an immediate release warrant and release the petitioner forthwith, unless he was required in another case.

The respondents retained liberty to recover the arrears under Section 421 Cr.P.C./Section 461 BNSS and to pursue appropriate civil remedies.

The revision petition was disposed of accordingly.