Dilip Kumar V. Family Court, Gorakhpur : 2000 Cri.L.J. 3893 : 2001 (2) DMC 584 : 2001 (1) HLR 426 : 2001 MLR 281 : 2000 (40) AIICric 315 : 2000 (41) AIILR 396 : 2001 (1) RCR (Crl) 274 : 274 : 1999 Online 9 (All)
Section 125(3)-Default in payment of maintenance-Imprisonment-No composite confinement can be directed in one stroke-only a confinement for a period of one month can be passed-Impugned consolidated order for 12 months confinement of delinquent husband quashed.
Held : From these it is clearly available that the person can be kept under confinement for each month's default and the confinement can be only for a period of one month. The subsequent part "until payment if sooner made" further clarifies the situation to the extent that such a husband can be confined to a period of one month even if the default is of more than a month and he can be allowed to come out of jail if the payment is made earlier at any point of time within this period. This very clearly indicates that if the payment is made within this period on any date his confinement will come to an end. The purpose behind this enactment of provision for confinement is to put an end to the sufferings of the wife by compelling the husband to pay the maintenance amount. The Court cannot keep him in confinement any further beyond a period of one month by one stroke of pen. In the present case an application was moved by the wife for the recovery of the arrears' amount which appears to be for several months.
The Family Judge has passed a consolidated order for 12 months' confinement of the applicant, i.e. for the total period of default. The applicant is the husband, who has failed to make payment of the maintenance amount allowed not only to the wife but also to his children. He has failed to discharge this obligation. The Court is vested with his extensive power with his interest in mind, i.e. compelling the husband to discharge his obligation imposed upon him by an order of a competent Court.