Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vikram Ramesh Rughani, challenged an order dated 20 January 2024 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C. No. 96/DV/2018, sentencing him to 47 months simple imprisonment for default in payment of interim maintenance. The case arose from a complaint filed by his wife, Respondent No. 2, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) on 18 August 2018. On 23 September 2019, the Magistrate granted interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 10,000 per month to their daughter. The petitioner paid intermittently, leading to arrears. The wife filed applications for arrest warrants, and on 8 November 2023, the Magistrate issued a warrant under Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 28 DV Act for recovery of Rs. 11,58,000. The petitioner was arrested and produced before the Magistrate on 20 January 2024. On that date, the Magistrate noted the petitioner's willingness to deposit Rs. 1,00,000 but held that arrears of Rs. 11,75,000 remained and sentenced him to 47 months simple imprisonment. The High Court found that the Magistrate did not issue any prior notice or provide an opportunity of hearing before imposing the sentence. The court held that sentencing without notice violates principles of natural justice and the procedure under Section 125(3) CrPC, which requires an opportunity to show cause. The court quashed the sentencing order and directed the Magistrate to issue a notice and hear the petitioner before passing any fresh order. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sentencing for Default in Maintenance - Section 125(3) CrPC read with Section 28 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Natural Justice - The Magistrate sentenced the petitioner to 47 months simple imprisonment for arrears of interim maintenance without prior notice or hearing - Held that sentencing without notice violates principles of natural justice and the procedure under Section 125(3) CrPC requires an opportunity to show cause before imposing sentence (Paras 1-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate could sentence the petitioner to imprisonment for default in payment of interim maintenance without first issuing a notice or providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 20 January 2024 sentencing the petitioner to 47 months simple imprisonment, and directed the Metropolitan Magistrate to issue a notice to the petitioner and provide an opportunity of hearing before passing any fresh order on the application for enforcement of maintenance.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Sentencing procedure
- Default in maintenance payment
- Section 125(3) CrPC
- Section 28 DV Act
- Opportunity of hearing
- Notice before sentencing
