Maintenance Defaulters Can Get One Month for Each Month Unpaid: Rajasthan High Court on Section 125(3) CrPC

The Sessions Judge, Pali referred three questions under Section 395 Cr.P.C. (para 1). First, whether a Magistrate is precluded from passing a sentence beyond one month, under an execution warrant, on a consolidated application made within one year of the amount falling due. Second, whether the Supreme Court's order in Shahada Khatoon is a binding precedent or a mere observation in light of the appellant's arguments in that case. Third, whether the clarifications of that order by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court (Santosh) and by the Bombay High Court (Gorakshnath) must be read in light of the arguments there. Members of the Bar, invited by a cause-list notice, argued both sides (paras 2, 4-5).

Reading Section 125(3), the Bench held that each monthly breach of the order is a distinct cause of action: the Magistrate may issue a warrant for the amount due and, on non-payment, sentence the defaulter to up to one month for each month's default, and nothing requires a separate application for each month (para 7). The judgments cited against the proposition allowed one month per month's default, but none barred a consolidated application (para 8). Shantha @ Ushadevi approved a continuing recovery application (para 9). Shahada Khatoon lays down only that the Magistrate cannot impose more than one month for one default; for the next default the wife may approach again, and it sets no formula against a consolidated application for 12 months (para 9). The Bench agreed with the Larger Bench of the Gujarat High Court, which had read Shahada Khatoon against the contention there that the husband could be kept in custody until payment (para 10). Under the proviso, the application must be made within one year of the amount falling due; a consolidated application eases the burden on claimants and courts, with sentences in descending order of defaults (para 11).