Kishori Prasad Mahto vs State of Jharkhand and Anr

Heard Ms. Shatakshi, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

Heard Mr. Arup Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party- State.

Learned Amicus Curiae submits that for the purposes of imposition of punishment under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure on account of non-payment of monthly allowance, there is a prescribed maximum period of punishment of one month only and in the instant case, a petition was filed upon default of three months and the learned court below imposed punishment for 15 days on each month and thus, exceeded one month's punishment. She further submits that subsequent punishment of 15 days for default of each subsequent month was also imposed without there being any separate application or interlocutory application by the opposite party no. 2 alleging non-payment of maintenance. She submits that such order passed by the learned court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and defeats the ends of justice. She has relied upon the judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SC 24 (para 4 and 5) and (1989) 1 SCC 405. She also submits that the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahada Khatoon is very clear. She submits that the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court holding that one month's punishment shall be imposed for each month's default, does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case and is contrary to the decision of the apex court in the case of Shahada Khatoon.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shantha @ Ushadevi & Anr. Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa" reported in (2005) 4 SCC 468 and has submitted that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it must be borne in mind that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure is a measure of social legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter and accordingly, it is unreasonable to insist on filing successive application when the liability to pay the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C. is a continuing liability. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel has also submitted that when a single petition was filed upon default of continuous three months, then the maximum punishment which could have been awarded by the learned court was for one month only .

Learned counsel for the opposite party- State has also supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

Arguments are concluded.

Judgement is reserved.