The Gujarat High Court recently upheld a family court order imposing a jail sentence of 660 days on a man for failing to pay ₹3.97 lakhs in maintenance to his wife and two children.

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar dismissed an application filed by the husband challenging a January 18, 2014, order of the Ahmedabad family court, which had imposed imprisonment after he failed to clear maintenance arrears amounting to ₹3.97 lakhs.

“The family Court has assigned proper reasons while passing the impugned order and therefore no case is made out for interference with the concurrent findings,” observed the High Court.

The Court further observed that the jail term imposed was not disproportionate, given that it was ten days for each month that the man failed to pay maintenance dues.

"Since the default pertained to 66 months, a total sentence of 660 days was imposed after granting the benefit of set-off. Considering the aforesaid facts, the sentence of ten days for each month of default cannot be said to be disproportionate. The applicant himself had surrendered and admitted his liability and inability to pay. Therefore, no irregularity has been committed by the learned Family Judge and no case is made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction."

The dispute stemmed from a marriage solemnised in March 2002 under Hindu rites, from which the couple had two children. According to the husband, the relationship gradually deteriorated and the wife left the matrimonial home in August 2007.

After separating, the wife approached the court seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In May 2013, the Family Court partly allowed her plea and directed the husband to pay ₹2,500 per month to the wife, ₹2,000 to one child and ₹1,500 to the other, along with litigation costs.

However, the husband failed to comply with the order.

The wife and children then initiated recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) CrPC (which empowers courts to enforce maintenance orders, impose imprisonment for non-payment). By that stage, the unpaid maintenance had accumulated to around ₹3.97 lakh.

During the recovery proceedings, the husband voluntarily appeared before the family court and admitted that the amount was due. He also stated that he did not own any property and was unable to pay the required amount. He pleaded for the court to impose a lesser sentence.

The family court recorded his statement and ensured that he understood the legal consequences of failing to pay maintenance. It then imposed ten days’ simple imprisonment for each month of default. As the default extended over 66 months, the total sentence amounted to 660 days.

The husband filed an application in 2014 seeking to quash the family court ruling. He pleaded that he has been in judicial custody since the passing of the January 2014 ruling.

The High Court, however, found no irregularity in the family court’s approach and dismissed his application.

Notably, the High Court also observed that the applicant had eventually lost interest in pursuing his application.

In its April 6 ruling, the Court noted that the applicant's earlier lawyer had become a public prosecutor, following which a new lawyer was engaged. Although notice was served through the new lawyer, the applicant did not appear for hearings. Therefore, the final verdict was passed in his absence, based on the material on record.

In its order, the High Court noted that the applicant had not only admitted the outstanding maintenance amount but had also surrendered before the family court to inform that he was unwilling to pay it.

Reaffirming the legal obligation of a husband to support his family, the Court underscored that maintenance orders are meant to ensure dignity and financial security for dependants.

“It is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife and to provide financial support to her and their children and he cannot shirk his responsibility as husband as well as father to maintain his legally wedded wife and children, which is his social and lawful duty towards them and the wife and children would be entitled to the same standard of living, which they were enjoying while living with them,” said the Court, before dismissing the application.

Advocates Belaben M Nayak and Bhunesh C Rupera appeared for the wife and the children.

Additional Public Prosecutor Shruti Pathak represented the State.

[Read Order]