MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Maximum Sentence for Maintenance Default is One Month Per Default, Rules Kerala High Court”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court yesterday clarified the legal position regarding the sentencing duration for default in the payment of maintenance under Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court, presided over by the Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias, dismissed a revision petition challenging the decision of the Family Court, Kalpetta, which sentenced the petitioner to ten months of imprisonment for failing to pay 28 months of maintenance arrears.

In his detailed judgment, Justice Dias quoted, “the maximum sentence that can be imposed under Section 125 (3) of the Code is a month’s imprisonment for every month’s default and not a maximum of a month’s imprisonment for the total default.” This statement has provided much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 125 (3), a provision that has seen varied interpretations across different legal forums.

The case, RPFC NO. 462 OF 2023, revolved around the petitioner, Rijas M.T., who was sentenced by the Family Court for not paying the maintenance amount to his wife and two minor children. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Family Court’s decision was erroneous, stating that it exceeded the jurisdiction by sentencing the revision petitioner to imprisonment for a period longer than one month. However, the High Court held that the Family Court acted within its rights.

Justice Dias emphasized the importance of maintenance in ensuring financial support to the dependents, underscoring the severity of defaulting on such obligations. He also addressed the procedural aspects under Section 421 of Cr.P.C, particularly in the wake of the Rajnesh v. Neha judgment, which necessitates affidavits of disclosure in maintenance applications.

Date of Decision: 15th November 2023

Rijas M.T. VS Hafseena M

Latest Legal News