The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed a foundational limit on coercive enforcement in maintenance cases under Section 125(3) CrPC, holding that civil imprisonment for default cannot exceed one month per breach, regardless of the aggregate arrears claimed. This ruling resolves persistent confusion in lower courts and reinforces the statutory ceiling on punitive detention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Raghubinder Singh Sahota, was ordered by the Family Court, Moga, to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,68,000/- in arrears to respondent No. 1, his wife. An execution application was filed seeking recovery of these arrears. The Family Court, by order dated 15.11.2025, directed the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment until 15.12.2025 - a period of one month - for non-payment of maintenance arrears covering two months: 06.12.2020 to 06.02.2021.
Key Facts
- The maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC was passed on an earlier date, not specified in the judgment, but arrears were calculated for the period 06.12.2020 to 06.02.2021
- Total arrears claimed: Rs. 3,68,000/-
- The Family Court’s order dated 15.11.2025 imposed imprisonment until 15.12.2025, equating to exactly one month
- The petitioner challenged this order as violative of Section 125(3) CrPC, arguing that imprisonment for two months’ arrears should not be imposed in a single order
- The petitioner had already served the imprisonment period by the time the revision petition was heard on 25.03.2026
Procedural History
- 06.12.2020: First month of default in maintenance payment
- 06.02.2021: End of two-month default period
- 15.11.2025: Family Court, Moga, issued order imposing simple imprisonment until 15.12.2025 for arrears of two months
- 25.03.2026: Revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court
- 25.03.2026: Judgment delivered; petitioner had already completed imprisonment by this date
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Family Court’s order dated 15.11.2025, arguing that imprisonment for two months’ arrears in a single order violated Section 125(3) CrPC. He also sought release from custody, which had already been served.
The Legal Issue
Can a Magistrate impose civil imprisonment for a period exceeding one month under Section 125(3) CrPC when the arrears of maintenance span multiple months, or is the maximum permissible term strictly limited to one month per breach?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that Section 125(3) CrPC permits imprisonment for a term extending to one month for each breach, and not cumulatively for multiple months of default. Relying on Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali (1999) 5 SCC 672 and Bal Raj v. Priya (2022) 1 RCR 202, he argued that the Family Court’s order effectively imposed a two-month sentence in one go, which is contrary to the statutory limit and settled precedent.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file a written reply. The court noted that the petitioner had already served the imprisonment period, rendering the petition largely infructuous. No substantive counter-argument was presented before the court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 125(3) CrPC, which states: "...may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’s [allowance] remaining unpaid... to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made." The Court emphasized that the phrase "each month’s" is pivotal - it limits the punishment to one month per monthly default, not per aggregate arrears.
The Court relied on the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali, which held: "...the powers of the Magistrate are restricted and no sentence exceeding the maximum i.e. one month, can be imposed for default, and if at all the default persists even after the expiry of one month the only remedy available to the aggrieved party would be to approach the Magistrate concerned again after the expiry of one month for enforcing her claim of maintenance."
The Court further cited its own coordinate bench’s decision in Bal Raj v. Priya, which reiterated that "the defaulter can under no circumstances be ordered to undergo composite civil imprisonment for a period beyond one month irrespective of the fact that the arrears etc. claimed in a single application by the aggrieved party may be for more than one month."
"...the powers of the Magistrate are restricted and no sentence exceeding the maximum i.e. one month, can be imposed for default..."
The Court observed that the impugned order, while imposing imprisonment until 15.12.2025, did not exceed one month in duration. The order was therefore not violative of Section 125(3) CrPC, even though it related to two months of arrears. The key was the duration of imprisonment - not the number of months of arrears.
The Court clarified that the Family Court had correctly imposed imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, as permitted by law. The petitioner had already served the sentence, making the petition infructuous.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Family Court’s order dated 15.11.2025 was upheld as compliant with Section 125(3) CrPC, as the imprisonment imposed was for a period of exactly one month. The petitioner had already completed his sentence by the date of judgment. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to file a fresh application for enforcement of any subsequent defaults.
What This Means For Similar Cases
One Month Per Breach Is Absolute
- Practitioners must not seek or accept orders imposing civil imprisonment beyond one month for any single execution application under Section 125(3) CrPC, even if arrears span multiple months
- Each instance of default must be enforced separately, with a fresh application filed after the expiry of each one-month period
- Courts must not consolidate multiple months of arrears into a single imprisonment order
Imprisonment Duration, Not Arrears Period, Is the Test
- The legality of the order depends on the length of imprisonment ordered, not the number of months of unpaid maintenance
- An order for one month’s imprisonment for two months’ arrears is lawful; an order for two months’ imprisonment is not
- Advocates must challenge any order that exceeds one month, regardless of the amount claimed
Infructuous Petitions Still Require Clarification
- Even if the petitioner has served the sentence, courts must still rule on the legal validity of the order to prevent recurrence
- The grant of liberty to file a fresh application underscores that enforcement is an ongoing process, not a one-time event
