S. 125 (3) CrPC: Composite Civil Imprisonment For More Than A Month Can't Be Imposed In Single Stroke
1. Section 125 CrPC – Overview
Section 125 CrPC provides for maintenance of wives, children and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
It is a social justice provision aimed at preventing vagrancy and destitution.
2. Section 125(3) CrPC – Enforcement Mechanism
If a person ordered to pay maintenance fails to comply, the Court may:
Issue a warrant to levy the amount due; and
Sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or until payment is made, whichever is earlier.
👉 So, imprisonment under S. 125(3) is a coercive measure, not a punishment. The objective is to compel payment.
3. The Key Issue: Can Court Impose Composite Civil Imprisonment Beyond One Month at Once?
Sometimes, arrears of maintenance may accumulate for several months.
Question: Can a Magistrate pass a single composite order of imprisonment exceeding one month for recovery of all arrears?
Answer (Settled Law): ❌ No.
The Court cannot impose civil imprisonment exceeding one month in a single stroke under Section 125(3).
However, the Court may pass successive orders of imprisonment, each not exceeding one month, for every breach/each month’s arrear.
4. Case Law
Shantha v. B.G. Shivananjappa (2005) 4 SCC 468
Facts: Husband defaulted on multiple months of maintenance.
Held: The Magistrate cannot pass a composite order of imprisonment for more than one month at a time.
But, successive imprisonment orders can be made for successive defaults.
Each month’s default is a separate cause of action.
Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 405
Held:
Imprisonment is not a punishment for failure to pay maintenance, but a means to enforce the order.
A defaulter can be sent to jail, but he is not absolved of liability to pay arrears even after serving sentence.
Poongodi v. Thangavel (2013) 10 SCC 618
Held: Even if a defaulter undergoes imprisonment, the liability to pay arrears continues.
The purpose of imprisonment is to secure compliance, not to discharge liability.
5. Principle Summarized
Imprisonment under S. 125(3):
Maximum 1 month at a time (per order).
Court cannot pass a single order of imprisonment for several months’ arrears at once.
But successive imprisonment orders can be passed for successive defaults.
Imprisonment ≠ payment substitute: Serving sentence does not wipe out arrears. The husband must still pay maintenance.
6. Conclusion
Section 125(3) CrPC is a protective tool ensuring compliance with maintenance orders.
Courts cannot impose composite imprisonment beyond one month in a single stroke.
Defaulter remains liable for arrears despite undergoing imprisonment.
The rule was clearly settled in Shantha v. B.G. Shivananjappa (2005) and reaffirmed in later judgments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments