HIMACHAL Pradesh High Court Upheld the legality of repeated civil imprisonment..
SHIMLA: The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has upheld the legality of repeated civil imprisonment for wilful non-payment of maintenance, ruling that a defaulter husband can be jailed for separate periods for every month’s default under Section 125(3) of the CrPC.
Dismissing a petition filed by Ram Lal, Justice Sandeep Sharma held that a Magistrate is empowered to impose imprisonment of up to one month for each month of unpaid maintenance and that consolidated applications covering multiple defaults are legally maintainable.
The case arose after the petitioner failed to clear maintenance arrears of Rs 60,000 payable to his wife and minor daughters from June 2018 onwards. The trial court had initially granted him time to deposit the amount, warning that failure would invite punishment. When he failed to pay, the Judicial Magistrate first sent him to civil imprisonment for 30 days for default relating to June 2018, followed by 15 days and 25 days respectively for subsequent defaults of July and August 2018.
Challenging the orders, the petitioner argued that under Section 125(3) CrPC, imprisonment could not exceed one month continuously and cited the Supreme Court judgment in Shahada Khatoon vs Amjad Ali.
Rejecting the plea, the High Court observed that maintenance liability is a “continuing liability” and imprisonment is merely a mode of enforcement, not a substitute for payment. The court said a defaulter cannot escape liability simply by undergoing jail time.
The judgment extensively referred to several Supreme Court rulings, including Kuldip Kaur vs Surinder Singh, Poongodi vs Thangavel and Shantha vs B.G. Shivananjappa, while holding that separate imprisonment terms can be imposed for each month of default where arrears continue to accumulate.
The court further clarified that up to 12 months of maintenance defaults can be clubbed in one execution application and imprisonment extending beyond one month may still be legally imposed if multiple monthly defaults are involved.
Finding no illegality in the orders of the trial court, the High Court dismissed the petition and vacated interim relief granted earlier.
