9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Maintenance entitlement u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, interpretation of proviso to Section 125(3) u/r arrears, enforcement of maintenance payment through imprisonment.
Judgment Summary: Issue 1: Maintenance entitlement u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The Appellants, wife and son of Thangavel, were granted maintenance by the trial court u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Respondent-husband failed to comply with the maintenance order, leading to imprisonment. A subsequent application for arrears was filed, contested, and appealed. The High Court limited the arrears to one year prior to the application filing date, affecting the entitlement to maintenance. Issue 2: Interpretation of proviso to Section 125(3) u/r arrears The High Court interpreted the proviso to Section 125(3) as limiting arrears to one year before the application date. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the proviso does not bar the entitlement to arrears but restricts the enforcement method. The liability to pay maintenance continues, and imprisonment is a means of enforcement, not satisfaction of the liability. Issue 3: Enforcement of maintenance payment through imprisonment Previous court decisions emphasized that imprisonment is a mode of enforcing maintenance recovery, not a substitute for payment. The liability to pay maintenance is continuous, and subsequent default applications are permissible. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing the Respondent to pay all arrears from the maintenance petition filing date and continue monthly payments. Non-compliance would lead to arrest and imprisonment as per Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
