Judgment N.C.Khichi, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 17.5.1999 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nawan Shahr, whereby the petitioner was sent to imprisonment initially for one month for default of payment of arrears of maintenance. 2. During the pendency of an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., filed by the respondents, they were awarded interim maintenance vide order dated 31.3.1997 from the date of application. During the proceedings, the matter came up on 17.5.1999 for purposes of filing compromise, however, the compromise was not materialised. The counsel for the respondents pressed for awarding maintenance. The learned trial court then ordered the petitioner to undergo imprisonment for default of payment of arrears of maintenance by pressing the impugned order. 3. At the time of motion hearing, Shri Bali stated that his client was willing to deposit Rs. 3000/-. The petitioner was allowed bail. He deposited Rs. 3000/- in the trial court on account of arrears of interim maintenance. 4. Shri R.S. Ghuman had been appearing on behalf of the respondents but later on none appeared on their behalf. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that no application on behalf of the respondent-wife for the recovery of arrears of interim maintenance was filed in Court and that no notice was issued to the petitioner to pay maintenance. He has further submitted that arrears of maintenance for a period of more than one year cannot be recovered. According to him, the action of the trial court in sending the petitioner to jail straightway without resorting to other measures for recovery of maintenance as provided in Section 421 Cr.P.C. was improper and illegal. 6. After giving due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel, I find force therein. The matter was fixed for compromise between the parties on 17.5.1999. No notice was issued to the petitioner to comply with the order awarding interim maintenance. 6. After giving due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel, I find force therein. The matter was fixed for compromise between the parties on 17.5.1999. No notice was issued to the petitioner to comply with the order awarding interim maintenance. Non-payment for maintenance can be enforced by issue of a process as for levying fine as provided in Section 421 Cr.P.C. Sending the petitioner to imprisonment before the issue of a warrant of levy of the amount as fine is in violation of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. The approach of the trial court in sending the petitioner to imprisonment for one month before the issuance of a warrant of levy of the amount as fine as contemplated under Section 421(1) is improper and in violation of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. 7. In view of what has been stated above, this revision succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the arrears of maintenance in accordance with law.