Order.- This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quilon recommending the modification of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Adoor, in Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 1963 of that Court. The revision counter-petitioner moved the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Adoor for the realisation of arrears of maintenance ordered to be paid by the revision petitioner to her for the maintenance of their two minor children. The petitioner contended that as per a mutual understanding he had executed Exhibit D-1 deed authorising her to appropriate the income from some properties in lieu of cash payment and as such he was not liable to pay maintenance. The learned Magistrate found the property settlement was not valid and had not taken effect. He therefore ordered the payment of arrears of maintenance and in default of payment of the whole or part of it the petitioner was to undergo imprisonment for six months. The matter was taken up in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge of Quilon who while rejecting the many objections to the lower Court’s order raised by the petitioner held that the learned Magistrate went wrong in ordering unconditional imprisonment. The learned Judge therefore has recommended the modification of the said order. I agree with the recommendation. Under clause (3) of section 488, Criminal Procedure Code a person can be sentenced to imprisonment only on the condition that he is to be freed even before the expiry of the term of imprisonment if payment is made. The learned Magistrate has attached no such condition to the order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner put forward a number of other contentions also. He argues that the order for imprisonment for six months is bad as section 488 permits imprisonment for only a term of one month. This contention was raised in the lower Court and has been rightly rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner put forward a number of other contentions also. He argues that the order for imprisonment for six months is bad as section 488 permits imprisonment for only a term of one month. This contention was raised in the lower Court and has been rightly rejected. Section 488 (3) reads: “If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in manner herein before provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole or part of each month’s allowance remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made.” The plain meaning of the words seems to be that a person is liable in default of payment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month for each breach of the order. The order here is that a certain amount of money be paid each month. For every breach of the order, i.e., for every default in the monthly payment, the petitioner becomes liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month. This is the interpretation put on the provision by many of our High Courts. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Chief Justice Chagla, and Gajendra-gadkar and Vyas, JJ., held that a Magistrate was right in sentencing the defaulter to be imprisoned for a term of 15 days in respect of each month for which the allowance remained unpaid, Karson Ramji Chawda v. The State of Bombay1. A similar view had been expressed by a number of other Courts also (vide Emperor v. Beni2, Ma Tin v. Maung Aye3, Allap-ichai Ravuthar v. Mohidin Bibi4, and Bhiku Khan v. Zahuran.5. Another contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Exhibit D-1 is a valid document and the petitioner was thus freed from his obligation to pay maintenance. We need not go into the question of the validity of the document in the light of the counter-petitioner’s claim, which has now been accepted by two Courts, that she was never put in possession of the property as per the document and did not receive any income at all from it. We need not go into the question of the validity of the document in the light of the counter-petitioner’s claim, which has now been accepted by two Courts, that she was never put in possession of the property as per the document and did not receive any income at all from it. In the result the reference is accepted and the order modified to the extent that the term of imprisonment in default of payment will be for a term of six months or until payment if sooner made. M.C.M. ----- Reference accepted.