The Allahabad High Court intervened to release a man imprisoned for failing to pay spousal maintenance, raising questions about the legality of extended jail terms in maintenance disputes.
Key Points
- The Allahabad High Court intervened in a case where a man was sentenced to 22 months in civil prison for failing to pay court-ordered maintenance to his wife.
- The High Court cited Section 125(3) of the CrPC, arguing that imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance should be limited to one month.
- The court emphasised that alternative methods, such as property attachment, should be used to recover unpaid maintenance amounts beyond the one-month imprisonment.
- The order highlights a potential conflict between family court practices and the High Court's interpretation of legal provisions regarding maintenance enforcement.
The Allahabad High Court has directed the immediate release of a man sentenced to 22 months in civil prison by a family court in Jhansi for failing to pay maintenance to his wife as per the court's order.
The husband, Tahir alias Babloo, had been in jail since December 3, following the execution of an arrest warrant.
In an order passed on April 2 directing the release, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri said there is no need to furnish a bail bond or sureties as he is in civil prison.
The court also directed the registrar (compliance) of the high court to communicate this order to the jail authorities for an immediate release.
Background of the Maintenance Case
As per the facts of the case, Tahir's wife had filed an application seeking recovery of Rs 2,64,000 for 22 months' unpaid maintenance. Subsequently, the husband was arrested by the Jalaun police and presented before the court, where he showed his helplessness in depositing the money.
He pleaded that he is a poor person unable to pay the amount and thus prayed for the minimum possible sentence.
However, the family court sentenced him to a 22-month prison term -- corresponding to the 22 moths' unpaid maintenance. It concluded that it was not necessary to file separate applications for each month of defaulting.
It opined that even on a consolidated application for arrears, a court can pass a sentence of one month for every month of default.
High Court Intervention and Legal Arguments
Tahir moved the high court challenging the family court order. His counsel submitted during proceedings that, as per Section 125(3) of CrPC, if a person fails to make the payment without sufficient cause, the court may send him to civil prison for only one month.
It was further contended that for any remaining unpaid amount after the execution of the warrant, the proper recourse is the attachment of property for recovery, not an extended jail term beyond one month.
After hearing the counsel, the court issued notice to Tahir's wife and ordered the immediate release of the husband. The matter will sbe heard next on May 18.
© 2026