Rohit Verma v. State Of Punjab And Others

 
    
  




 

 !

"#$#%&

' ' (# ) *+ '''

# #% * ) *$,$ -

 ,%.

/ %! ( *$   ''' $0%!

% $
&  12'-
-

 



 

  





 

-

3'425 !







"#$



 

       



     

  ! "  #  $  %

  &  !

   &  


 
&

   
  
&
 

' ! 
 
 

 
 $

!
%&





' $
 %(



)


%
!







*


' +

, 

%% 






' $






$,

*&
%




%


-&


&

' $



*& %
%






. /"

$/ .

01





1

0
2,///34

%

 


*

%
%
%




&

   51

41%


%
% 
' $

,


6



1

 %

 

6
&





&
64



4
0
'
$

,

 



1



&1

 %









7 $
$/$  


1







 %&


$ / $/$$ +

8







%& 

$ / $/$$

 






1

 

1


1




!
1 
%
%

1


1
&

1
 










& 
 1
9%

'
$

,

&


 1
&




%





 

1

%
&


%
%

8 

&


4





6 &





1
% 


% 6



1


1%




%





1


!


1
 &



&


1




& 

6




&







81


 %




 


 
%











 1


%



 "









1 




 

)


 
 










$,



 
&
%






,

!






&&
%


 









&1

 


%&


%
%





%
*







&




 


!


5



% &

&



&



 

$,









1
 



%


%

!




$,





%




 

%







 



,:+;

1

+.








4<&
=


)> 
%







  
*&
&
<
9%
= 





               

       

!       

"  "  # $ 
4<&
=


)> 
%


 



   !" # $$
*&
&
< 9(
?




%  #       



  

  "  

         

 

      #  "     "    

       #    #             

 

      #  "     # 

    

 

       

           



  

   # "    

     " 

 

$

!


&
1







%1





 




%
%*&


 %

&
1



%

6
!
 %
%
1
&





& 








5%

%







%



5
!
5%

% %

 









 






6%


%
&
 1

6&
&










 1
!
51


%




%

1*




&
 





  %

#

)


 






 







$,




6

  %     &

  %   

'  %(

  

)

 &'! 

  #     

 #  " (  " 

  " #          

             "        

" #     

   #                       )    "

"

  )

# "

 

  #  ) 



       

 .

!



%

&
1
 &

1


%

%



 


6





$,:+;


 




 ! )!

 !



*(  +

$,3


$
<&



)> 
%

*&

 &
<

!**
%

&
 
* +    

      # #           

  



          

  # #  

   %* )

    "      -



% -  .         -

% - ( / 0( /%/ 

/* %!)  ( 

  #        

 

    

  # # 

 #  #     "

   

,           

 #       #   -    

  

  #     

      

  # .#     .   #   !#      

# .#   

  .      #       

    #   #                     

          

  # # 

(

  #       #         #   

 ## / 

  #  

              #          

         !



   #  "

 #  

              

            ! 

         

 

        #  

     

  



0 #  #  

                                  #         

          

  1   

  #   

 



  #        

 ,      

    

  # "  +   

     

         

     /   #   $& '

/



1


$,:+;











&
1%

%

&
%1
 

1&

%



%


1&

  


"$




&
%1

 





1



%

=

 
%

%


&
%
6
&

 

1

%
%





)


%1%


%

&
1





 




%
%




1  



!
% 









$,:+;





(



&&
1 
>
%







%



 




 &

1

%1


%*

 1%


!



&


&


% 6
1





&



 



%1






 


1



%>



%
& %
%
%&

!

%1
6
 %%


%



%


1%

%



!



@








 &
!









%

1
%1 












 1
%

 







 



&% 
1

-
=


0 
)&


.1 21

3

 %  4  '5  %   6!

* '4 3   ,    1  1     $' 

&
   "7.

Firstly, we consider the plain language of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 which provides that "if a person ordered to pay maintenance, fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and may sentence such person for the whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance....., to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made." Splitting the provision for better understanding, it becomes clear that it operates in four parts:

(i) Non-compliance of the order of maintenance by the person directed to pay monthly maintenance, (ii) Every breach of the order, (iii) Issuance of warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines and (iv) Sentencing such person for the whole or any part of each month's allowance, imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month.

Meaning thereby, if the person ordered to make payment of maintenance fails to do so, the Magistrate shall be empowered to issue warrant for recovery of the maintenance due in the manner provided for levying fines and may also sentence such person for the whole or any part of each month's allowance to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month. Clearly thus, every single breach of the monthly maintenance order gives rise to a distinct cause of action calling for issuance of a warrant for levying of the amount and a discretion is given to the Magistrate that in the event of non-payment, the person ordered may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month for each month's default.

The clear intention of the legislature is that as the order of maintenance is stipulated to provide maintenance on a monthly basis, every breach thereof is an infringement for which a separate warrant for levying fine is to be issued and in addition thereto, the person so ordered can be sentenced to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month concurring with every breach. The application for recovery of the maintenance amount can be filed within a period of 12 months from the date it becomes due. The section does not provide that the claimant must file separate applications for recovery of each month's allowance." (emphasis added) 2.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court makes it evident that despite attachment of the property of the petitioner, he has failed to appear before the Court and make the actual payment of arrears. It is further observed by the learned Family Court that the petitioner cannot feign ignorance in the present case as he has challenged the order vide which interim maintenance was granted to respondents No.2 to 5. As a result, the conditional warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner. The cardinal rule of interpretation of statutes is to read the statute literally and give the words their grammatical and natural meaning. If that is contrary to, or inconsistent with, any express intention or declared purpose of the statute, or if it would attract any absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency, the grammatical sense must

then be modified, extended or abridged, so far as to avoid such an inconvenience, but no further (See: Craies on Statute Law, Seventh ed. Page 8385). 13.

A perusal of subsection (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. discloses that the Magistrate is empowered to issue warrant for recovery of the maintenance due in the manner provided for levying fines and may also sentence such person for the whole or any part of each month's allowance to imprisonment. The word "and" has to be given its plain and literal meaning and as such, has to be interpreted as a conjunctive term. Since the overarching intent of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. is to maintain the neglected spouse and minor children and provide them with sufficient monthly allowance to enable them to lead a life of dignity, giving the word "and" its literal meaning would only better achieve the objective of recovering the amount of arrears and facilitate the payment of maintenance. Consequently, the averment of the learned counsel for the petitioner that 






 after the property of the petitioner has already been attached


%


"

&1




%
&


1 %

,

&
%
:;

1


 


4-

5

' '   +  2 # %, 3

 43/

%   43/