Skip to content


Gangula Pratap Reddy Vs. Gangula Vijayalakshmi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revn. Case No. 627 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1982CriLJ2365
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 125(3)
AppellantGangula Pratap Reddy
RespondentGangula Vijayalakshmi and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV. Rajendra Babu, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdditional Public Prosecutor
Excerpt:
.....order - court observed that it was open to magistrate to pass sentence of imprisonment up to one month in respect of each month for which maintenance remained unpaid - imprisonment of 20 months was severe - sentence was reduced to term at rate of 9 days in respect of each month. - motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds..........to sentence a person for a term not exceeding one month. the full bench upheld an order of the magistrate sentencing the husband to be imprisoned for a term of 15 days in respect of each month for which the allowance remained unpaid. therefore it is open to the magistrate under section 125(3) to pass the sentence of imprisonment up to one month in respect of each month. however imprisonment for 20 months is rather severe. it is accordingly reduced to a term at the rate of 9 days in respect of each month, in total 180 days, i.e. for 6 months. with this modification of sentence of imprisonment the revision is dismissed. the other directions given by the lower court are confirmed. 3. revision dismissed reducing sentence.
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The First respondent and her minor sons filed M.C. No. 48/77 for maintenance and the maintenance was awarded at the rate of Rs. 300/- and that has become final. The husband who is the petitioner herein however failed to pay the maintenance regularly and therefore the respondents filed M.P. 1636/80 for enforcement of the maintenance. The learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal directed the husband to pay a sum of Rupees 6,085/- with arrears and in default to undergo 20 months' simple imprisonment. He also directed that warrant should be issued under Section 125(3) to the Collector of Warangal authorising him to realise the said amount as arrears of land revenue. It is this order that is challenged in this revision case.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 125(3) the 1Magistrate has no power to impose a sentence of imprisonment in respect of each month for which the maintenance remained unpaid. It is true the learned Magistrate has sentenced the petitioner herein who is the husband to undergo 20 months' simple imprisonment on the ground that there was default for 20 months. But that is permissible under Section 125(3). A Full Bench of Bombay High Court in K. R. Chawda v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 Bom 99 : (1958 Cri LJ 351) held that the power of the Magistrate is in respect of whole or any part of each month's allowance remaining unpaid to sentence a person for a term not exceeding one month. The Full Bench upheld an order of the Magistrate sentencing the husband to be imprisoned for a term of 15 days in respect of each month for which the allowance remained unpaid. Therefore it is open to the magistrate under Section 125(3) to pass the sentence of imprisonment up to one month in respect of each month. However imprisonment for 20 months is rather severe. It is accordingly reduced to a term at the rate of 9 days in respect of each month, in total 180 days, i.e. for 6 months. With this modification of sentence of imprisonment the revision is dismissed. The other directions given by the lower court are confirmed.

3. Revision dismissed reducing sentence.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //