Jharkhand High Court: Maintenance Default Jail Term Cannot Exceed One Month, Husband Ordered Released
The Jharkhand High Court has held that a person who fails to comply with a maintenance order under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be jailed for a maximum of one month, and a trial court cannot keep imprisoning a husband over and over under this provision.
The court was hearing a criminal appeal against an order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dumka, which had rejected a man's plea for release from civil imprisonment imposed for not paying monthly maintenance to his wife. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, sitting in a single bench, said the trial court cannot continuously imprison a husband under Section 125(3) CrPC for non-payment of monthly maintenance without regard to the statutory limits and the nature of the remedy.
Imprisonment under this provision is only a way of enforcing a maintenance order and does not wipe out the underlying liability to pay, the court explained. Successive sentences cannot be imposed for the same default, and the maximum jail term for non-compliance is one month per default. A longer sentence is not allowed. The court added that while the liability to pay maintenance is continuous and successive applications for enforcement are permissible, each application must relate to a distinct default.
The case began when the petitioner's wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking Rs 8,000 per month for herself and Rs 3,000 per month for their minor daughter. The couple married in 2017 and had a child, after which the wife alleged she was subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband. The Family Court, Dumka, directed the husband to pay Rs 5,000 per month to his wife and Rs 3,000 per month to the child.
The wife then filed an enforcement petition, saying arrears were pending and the husband had not paid. The petitioner was arrested and kept in custody through successive orders. He applied for release from judicial custody, citing his inability to pay and prolonged detention, but the court rejected the plea the same day and directed that he be imprisoned for default in paying maintenance dues for March 2026.
Referring to Section 125(3), the bench explained that detention for non-payment of maintenance can only be for 30 days, and for every breach of the order the same can be imposed within the statutory period of one year. It also noted that if a husband offers to maintain his wife and she refuses to live with him, the court must consider the grounds she states for refusing.
Since the court had extended custody for 30 days through 23 separate orders, the bench set aside the impugned order. Allowing the revision, it directed that the petitioner be released forthwith. Advocate Rishav Kumar represented the petitioner, while Advocate D.C. Mishra appeared for the opposite party.
Source: Verdictum