गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय ने पत्नी और बच्चों को भरण-पोषण (maintenance) की ₹3.97 लाख की बकाया राशि न देने पर एक व्यक्ति की 660 दिनों की जेल की सजा को बरकरार रखा है और कहा कि दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता (Code of Criminal Procedure) की धारा 125(3) के तहत आर्थिक सहायता प्रदान करना पति का एक सामाजिक और कानूनी कर्तव्य (lawful duty) है।
AHMEDABAD – In a significant ruling reinforcing the financial obligations of spouses, the Gujarat High Court has upheld a 660-day prison sentence for a man who failed to pay maintenance arrears totaling approximately ₹3.97 lakhs to his wife and two children.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar dismissed the husband’s revision application, confirming that the sentence—calculated at 10 days of imprisonment for every month of default—was neither disproportionate nor irregular under the law.
Case Background and Recovery Proceedings
The legal battle stems from a 2013 family court order that directed the husband to provide monthly support to his estranged family. After 66 months passed without payment, the wife initiated recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
During these proceedings, the husband informed the court that he was both unable and unwilling to clear the dues, citing a lack of assets. Consequently, the family court ordered him into judicial custody to serve a sentence corresponding to the length of his default.
The "Social and Lawful Duty"
The High Court emphasized that maintenance laws are designed to prevent destitution and ensure that dependents maintain the standard of living they enjoyed during the marriage. Justice Suthar noted that a husband cannot simply "shirk his responsibility" by pleading an inability to pay.
Key Findings of the Court:
- Voluntary Admission: The applicant had previously surrendered and admitted to the liability, making the family court's intervention legally sound.
- Legal Proportionality: The court found the calculation of 10 days' simple imprisonment per month of default to be a reasonable exercise of judicial power.
- Mandatory Support: The ruling underscored that providing financial support is an essential social and lawful duty of both a husband and a father.
Judicial Conclusion
The High Court’s refusal to interfere with the lower court's "concurrent findings" sends a clear message on the enforceability of family support orders. The court concluded that maintenance is a matter of dignity and security for the wife and children, and the legal system must ensure these orders are not rendered toothless by non-compliance.
Discription: The Gujarat High Court has upheld a 660-day prison sentence for a man who failed to pay ₹3.97 lakhs in maintenance arrears to his wife and two children. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar dismissed the husband’s challenge to a family court order, which imposed ten days of simple imprisonment for each of the 66 months he defaulted on payments.
The Court emphasized that under Section 125(3) of the CrPC, such a sentence is not disproportionate, especially since the man had admitted his liability and stated an unwillingness to pay. The ruling reaffirms that providing financial support is a "social and lawful duty" that a husband cannot shirk. By prioritizing the dignity and financial security of dependents, the High Court signaled that maintenance orders must be strictly enforced to prevent destitution.