Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Section 397, CrPC is directed against the order dated 04.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, district Barmer (for short the trial Court hereinafter) whereby the application filed by non-petitioner under Proviso (i) to Section 125, CrPC was allowed and the petitioner was sentenced to undergo 46 months simple imprisonment in default of payment of maintenance allowance amounting to Rs. 68,000/-. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sub-section (3) of Section 125, CrPC empowers the Magistrate to issue 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 months allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be, 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. Thus, the maximum period to award sentence of imprisonment for a person who fails to pay maintenance allowance is one month only, whereas in the instant case, the trial Court awarded the imprisonment of 46 months. Learned Counsel has relied on a decision of Honble Supreme Court in Shahada Khatoon vs. Amjad Ali, 2000 (3) RLW 414 (SC), wherein the Apex Court held that Magistrate is empowered to award sentence of one month imprisonment or until the payment if sooner be made. Longer imprisonment cannot be awarded. 4. This Court in Kewal Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 856/2003 decided on 111.2003 relying on the decision of Apex Court referred hereinabove held that the language of Sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear. The Magistrate is empowered to award sentence of 1 month imprisonment or until the payment is made. In case the person fail to comply with the order without sufficient cause, a imprisonment beyond one month for non-compliance of the provisions Section 125, CrPC is not permissible. In case of continuous default the only remedy would be to file an application under Sub-clause (3) after each breach. It will be open for the Magistrate to pass a fresh order for the same relief . 5. In case of continuous default the only remedy would be to file an application under Sub-clause (3) after each breach. It will be open for the Magistrate to pass a fresh order for the same relief . 5. In this view of the matter, the order impugned awarding sentence beyond one month cannot sustain and is liable to be modified. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment of one month. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 04.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Siwana, Barmer is modified and the sentence of imprisonment of 46 months is substituted by one month. This sentence will confine to the first default in payment of maintenance, for the subsequent months, it will be open to the non-petitioner to file separate application for the same relief . The application for suspension of sentence/bail stands disposed of . If the petitioner has already suffered the imprisonment of one month, he be released forthwith.