Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gous Sahebji Shaikh, was a driver employed with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. His wife and seven children (respondents 1 to 7) filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in 1987. The Magistrate disposed of the application on 8th September 1989, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance. That order attained finality. However, the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance amount, leading the respondents to apply for issuance of an arrest warrant. After issuing notice to the petitioner, the Magistrate passed an order on 18th August 1990 directing that the petitioner be sentenced to simple imprisonment until 17th August 1991 for default in payment of maintenance arrears of Rs.16,250, or until payment is sooner made. The petitioner then moved an application before the lower court pointing out that he was employed and that imprisonment would cause him to lose his job. Taking this into account, the lower court on 20th August 1990 directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the outstanding amount. The petitioner deposited Rs.4,000, and the court directed the sub jail to produce the accused for further orders. The petitioner challenged the order of sentencing by way of a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The court noted that the order of maintenance had attained finality and that the petitioner had defaulted in payment. The court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass the order sentencing the petitioner to imprisonment for default, and that the sentence was not disproportionate. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Maintenance - Default in Payment - Section 125 CrPC - The petitioner husband was ordered to pay maintenance to his wife and children under Section 125 CrPC. On his failure to pay arrears of Rs.16,250, the Magistrate sentenced him to simple imprisonment till payment. The High Court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass such order and the sentence was not disproportionate. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order sentencing the petitioner to simple imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance arrears under Section 125 CrPC is legal and justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the order of the Magistrate sentencing the petitioner to simple imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance arrears.
Law Points
- Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC
- Default in payment
- Sentencing for default
- Imprisonment for non-payment
- Arrears of maintenance
- Jurisdiction of Magistrate
- Proportionality of sentence
