SMT. KULDIP KAUR versus SURINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 03-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
a 
SMT. KULDIP KAUR 
v. 
SURINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER. 3, 1988 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197.3-Sections 125 to 128-Distinc-
tion to be made between mode of enforcement and mode of satisfaction 
of maintenance order-Sentencing the person to jail is ti mode of 
enforcement and not a mode of satisfaction of the liability. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 125-0rder for 
maintenance of wife and child passed-Whether detaining husband in 
jail for failing to pay arrears of maintenance would be tantamount to 
satisfaction of the order of maintenance even though arrears of main-
tenance allowance remain unrecovered in fact-Held no. Actual pay-
D ment must be made for satisfaction of the order. 
The appellant was awarded maintenance for herself and her son 
to be paid by respondent No. I, her husband, under Section 125 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 
The husband did not pay the maintenance allowance and it fell into 
B arrears. The appellant moved an application for execution of the order 
for maintenance. In the course of enforcement of the order of mainte-
nance the husband was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one 
month by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The appellant again prayed for 
recovery of the arrears. The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected her 
prayer on the ground that the claim for arrears stood satisfied upon the 
R 
husband having been sent to jail. The appellant filed a revisional appli-
cation in the High Court. The High Court rejected the revisional appli-
cation summarily without a speaking order. Hence this appeal by 
special leave. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: A distinction bas to be drawn between a mode of enforc-
ing recovery on the one hand and effecting actual recovery of the 
amount of monthly maintenance allowance which bas fallen in arrears 
on the other. Sentencing a person to jail is a 'mode of enforcement'. It is 
n.ot a 'mode of satisfaction' of the liability. The liability can.be satisfied 
only by making actual payment of the arrears. The whole purpose of 
762 
SMT. KULDIP KAUR v. SURINDER SINGH [THAKKAR, J,J 
763 
sending to jail is to oblige a person liable to pay the monthly allowance 
A 
who refuses to comply with the order without sufficient cause, to obey 
the order and to make the payment. The purpose of sending him to jail 
is not to wipe out the liability which he has refused to discharge. Be it 
also realised that a person ordered to pay monthly allowance can be 
sent to jail only if he fails to pay monthly allowance 'without sufficient 
cause' to comply with the order. It would indeed he strange to hold that B 
a person who 'without reasonable cause' refuses to comply with the 
order of the Court to maintain his neglected wife or child would be 
absolved of his liability merely because he prefers to go to jail. A sent· 
ence of jail is no substitute for the recovery of the amount of monthly 
allowance which has fallen in arrears. Monthly allowance is paid in 
order to enable the wife and child to live by providing with the essential 
i)conomic wherewithal. Neither the neglected wife nor the neglected 
C 
child can live without funds for purchasing food and the essential arti· 
cles to enable them to live. Instead of providing them with the funds, no 
useful purpose would be served by sending the husband to jail. Sentenc· 
ing to jail is the means for achieving the end of enforcing the :oriier -'hy 
recovering the amount of arrears. It is not a mode of discharging llabi· 
D 
lity. The order for monthly allowance can be discharged only upon the 
monthly allowance being recovered. [767B·G I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4 
of 1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29. 7. 1982 of the Delhi High 
E 
Court in Criminal Revision No. 187 of 1982. 
Anand Prakash and V .B. Saharaya for the Appellant. 
Arvind Kumar, Mrs. Laxmi Arvind, Ms. K.V. Lalitha and K.B. 
Chatterjee for the Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THAKKAR, J. We have yet to come across a case of a wife 
wronged by her husband and a child wronged by his father who had to' 
suffer also at the hands of the Court. For, while the Trial Magistrate G 
has disposed of the matter in a very cursory manner taking a 
thoroughly untenable and unjust view, the High Court has rejected the 
Revisional Application summarily. Both the Courts have done so 
notwithstand
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.