Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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