Court emphasizes statutory limit of one month imprisonment per default under Section 125(3) CrPC; successive jail terms for same maintenance default declared illegal
In a significant judgment delivered on October 15, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., has set aside the continuous civil imprisonment of Dasrath Singh, who was held repeatedly for defaulting on monthly maintenance payments under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The court ruled that the maximum imprisonment permissible for each distinct default in payment of maintenance is one month or until payment, if sooner made, and successive sentences for the same default are illegal.
The case arose from a maintenance order dated March 31, 2023, in which the petitioner, Dasrath Singh, was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 per month to his wife, Shampu Kumari, and Rs. 3,000 per month to their minor daughter. Following non-payment, the wife filed an enforcement petition. The trial court had repeatedly extended the petitioner's custody through 23 successive orders, each for 30 days, without releasing him, and in some instances, sending him to jail again for the same default month.
The petitioner challenged this practice, submitting that such continuous detention exceeded the statutory limits prescribed under Section 125(3) CrPC. The High Court agreed, holding that imprisonment under this provision is merely a coercive measure to enforce compliance with maintenance orders and does not extinguish the underlying liability. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali (1999) which clarified that imprisonment beyond one month for a single default is not permissible, and successive enforcement applications must relate to separate defaults.
The Court observed that the trial court's extension of custody multiple times for the same default was contrary to law. It emphasized that while the liability to pay maintenance is continuous, enforcement through imprisonment must respect the one-month limit per breach. The wife may file successive enforcement applications after the expiry of one month, but cannot seek repeated imprisonment for the same default.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the order dated April 16, 2026, which rejected the petitioner's application for release and directed his immediate release. The petitioner also expressed willingness to comply with maintenance payments upon release.
This judgment underscores the balance between enforcing maintenance obligations and protecting the rights of the accused, reaffirming that imprisonment under Section 125(3) CrPC is a limited coercive remedy and cannot be misused to impose indefinite detention.
Bottom Line:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 125(3) In enforcement of maintenance order, husband cannot be kept in continuous civil imprisonment by repeated extension of custody for the same default - Maximum imprisonment is one month for each distinct breach/default - Successive enforcement applications are permissible only for separate defaults - Second imprisonment for same default is illegal.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 125(3)
Dasrath Singh v. Shampu Kumari, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999367
