S.125 CrPC | Husband's Detention For Failure To Pay Maintenance Can't Become Indefinite Punitive Imprisonment: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that imprisonment in maintenance execution proceedings is merely a coercive mechanism intended to secure compliance and cannot be converted into indefinite punitive detention. The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi ordered the release of a labourer who had remained incarcerated since October 2025 for non-payment of maintenance arrears to his wife and...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that imprisonment in maintenance execution proceedings is merely a coercive mechanism intended to secure compliance and cannot be converted into indefinite punitive detention.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi ordered the release of a labourer who had remained incarcerated since October 2025 for non-payment of maintenance arrears to his wife and minor children, observing that prolonged imprisonment of an indigent person may ultimately defeat the purpose of the maintenance law by depriving him of the ability to earn and discharge future liabilities.
The bench highlighted,
"In the considered opinion of this Court, continued detention of an indigent person, who claims inability arising from prolonged incarceration itself, may ultimately frustrate the very purpose sought to be achieved by maintenance law because the person detained becomes economically incapacitated from discharging future liabilities".
The applicant's wife and two minor children had initiated maintenance proceedings alleging neglect and refusal to maintain them. The JMFC, by order of September 17, 2024, directed the applicant to pay monthly maintenance of ₹1500 to the wife and ₹750 to each of the two children, totaling ₹3000 per month.
Subsequently, execution proceedings were initiated for the recovery of arrears amounting to approximately ₹1.38 lakh. Pursuant to a warrant issued by the executing court, the applicant was arrested on October 30, 2025 and remained lodged in Sub Jail, Rahil.
During incarceration, the applicant moved an application under Section 48 BNSS seeking release from custody and conteded that he was a labourer dependent on manual work for livelihood, and that prolonged imprisonment had rendered him incapable of earning the income necessary to clear the arrears. He also submitted that he had already deposited 120,000 towards maintenance dues.
However, both the JMFC and revisional court rejected his plea, observing that substantial arrears remained unpaid.
The counsel appearing for the applicant argued that the applicant had been in continuous incarceration since October 30, 2025, in one singular execution proceedings for recovery of maintenance arrears and such prolonged incarceration extending beyond four months had assumed a punitive character wholly alien to the object and scheme of maintenance law.
The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the executing court as well as the revisional court failed to appreciate that prolonged imprisonment itself frustrates the object of maintenance proceedings because the incarcerated person is deprived of any practical means to generate income for maymentof maintenance.
Examining Section 125 CrPC and corresponding provisions under BNSS, the court noted that the provisions are intended to prevent vagrancy, destitution and economic abandonment of wives, children and parents. Therefore, the mechanism prescribed for the enforcement of maintenance orders should be exercised with constitutional and legal limitations, with principles of fairness and proportionality.
Per the record, the bench noted that the applicant was taken into custody in October 2025 and has been in continuous incarceration. The bench held that both courts have failed to consider the larger issue of permissibility and proportionality of prolonged incarceration in a singular execution proceeding.
The bench highlighted, "The law relating to imprisonment in maintenance execution proceedings has consistently recognized that detention is merely a coercive device intended to compel compliance and not a punitive sentence akin to criminal incarceration. Once detention ceases to operate as an effective coercive mechanism and instead assumes the nature of indefinite punitive confinement, the same travels beyond the permissible statutory framework".
Additionally, the court noted that the applicant had specifically pleaded that he is a labourer and derives his livelihood from manual work. Therefore, the consequence of his prolonged incarceration is that he was completely deprived of his earning capacity.
On the other hand, the court, considering the rights of the wife and children, concluded that maintenance is a legal entitlement flowing from statutory obligations and not a matter of charity. Therefore, the applicant cannot be extinguished of maintenance liability.
Considering the facts of the case, the court deemed the continued detention of the applicant unsustainable under the law. Therefore, the court set aside the impugned orders. However, the court further directed the applicant to deposit an amount of ₹25,000/- before the executing Court within a period of 30 days from the date of his release and shall continue to regularly pay future maintenance in terms of the order dated September 17, 2024.
Case Title: Laxmikant Sonu v Smt Radha, MCRC-18044-2026
For Petitioner: Advocate Dilip Kumar Shrivastav
For Wife: Advocate Rajendra Yadav