BHURE Vs. GOMATIBAI
LAWS(MPH)-1980-10-16
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on October 07,1980

BHURE Appellant
VERSUS
GOMATIBAI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DURGA SINGH LODHI VS. PREMBAI [LAWS(MPH)-1990-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
BHAKTA BHUYAN VS. SAVITRI BHUYAN [LAWS(ORI)-1990-10-28] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR PRADHAN VS. PRAMILA PRADHAN [LAWS(ORI)-1993-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAMNATH LAXMAN JADHAV VS. KAUSALYA RAMNATH JADHAV [LAWS(BOM)-1983-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKRISHNAN T K VS. C N SUBHADRA [LAWS(KER)-2009-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR VS. SUNITA DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-1-10] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE applicant-husband, being aggrieved by the trial Magistrate's Order dated 2-9-78, passed under Section 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C. directing his imprisonment for a period of 12 months due to his default in payment of maintenance amount, has preferred the revision against the same,
(2.)CONSEQUENT to the Magistrate's Order dated 10-1-76 granting monthly maintenance to the non-applicant wife and the child, at the rate of Rs. 150/-in total, from the date of the application for maintenance, the non-applicant wife moved the Court for enforcement of the maintenance Order in the matter of recovery of the arrears of maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000/ -. The applicant husband, after avoiding his appearance for long, finally appeared and apprised the Court that he did not want to pay any maintenance amount and nor would he pay the same, (see Order-sheet dated 30-9-77 ). Considering the recalcitrant attitude of the applicant-husband, the learned Magistrate, vide the Order impugned before me. sentenced the applicant-husband to imprisonment for a period of 12 months for his default in making the payment. Hence now, the present revision.
(3.)THE learned Counsel for the applicant husband, has urged before me that the impugned Order in question is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 125 of the Code, inasmuch as, the applicant husband could not, at once be sentenced to jail in the absence of, at first, issuing the distress warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines which is the condition precedent for making an Order for sentencing the husband to any term of imprisonment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.