Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17. 2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in Crl. M.P. No. 274 of 2003, this criminal revision is focused. 2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but succinctly, the case of the revision petitioner would run thus: The revision petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent in Crl. M.P. No. 274 of 2003 filed by the respondent herein for the purpose of recovering the maintenance arrears for a period of 16 months from 210. 2000 to 23. 2002; whereupon the learned Magistrate, ordered the revision petitioner herein to undergo 12 months imprisonment in view of non-payment of maintenance as ordered by the Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision is filed mainly on the ground that the respondent herein instead of taking steps to recover the arrears of maintenance by proceeding against the immovable property owned by the petitioner, had chosen to obtain arrest warrant as against the petitioner so as to detain him in jail and the learned Magistrate also without considering the feasibility of recovering the maintenance by proceeding as against the immovable property of the revision petitioner, simply, had chosen to order for detaining him for a period of 12 months; there is no law authorising the Magistrate to imprison for more than 1 month, the revision petitioner at a stretch for his default in paying maintenance. 3. Despite service of notice, the respondent has not appeared. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 5. The points for consideration are as to: (i) Whether the holder of maintenance order is expected to exhaust the remedy of recovering the maintenance arrears at the first instance by proceeding as against the properties of the individual bound to pay maintenance by getting appropriate orders from the Magistrate and Whether the Magistrate is bound to proceed at the first instance only as against the properties of such person? (ii) Whether the Magistrate is justified in ordering detaining of accused for one year at a stretch for non-payment of maintenance for 16 months? Point No. 1: 6. (ii) Whether the Magistrate is justified in ordering detaining of accused for one year at a stretch for non-payment of maintenance for 16 months? Point No. 1: 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would advance and develop, set forth and put forth his argument to the effect that the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing order for detaining the revision petitioner for a period of 12 months without taking steps to recover the dues, so to say, the arrears of maintenance by selling the immovable properties of the petitioner. 7. At this juncture, I would like to refer to Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it is extracted here under for ready reference: “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 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 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; Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this Section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation-If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’s refusal to live with him.” A plain reading of it would amply make the point clear that there is no embargo for the Magistrate to detain the revision petitioner herein, in jail even before taking steps to recover the arrears of maintenance by proceeding as against the property of the revision petitioner. There is nothing to indicate as to what prevented the revision petitioner from raising money by mortgaging his immovable property or encumbering it in any other way and pay the arrears of maintenance. This is a peculiar case, in which the Magistrate clearly observed that the petitioner had the audacity to utter before the Magistrate that he might be sent to jail and that he would not pay the arrears of maintenance. 8. Detaining a person and thereby compelling him to pay the arrears of maintenance is the effective and swift method contemplated under Section 125(3) of Cr. P.C. and the defaulter in paying maintenance, viz., the revision petitioner cannot mandate or expect that at the first instance the Magistrate should proceed only against the property of the revision petitioner by way of recovering the arrears. 9. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: 10. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decisions of this Court Mahboob Basha v. Nannima @ Hajara Bibi and Another (2004) 1 MLJ (Crl) 400 : I (2006) DMC 106, Certain excerpts from it would run thus at p.p. 400 & 401 of MLJ (Crl): “2….. Mr. S. Manikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that under Section 125(3), Cr.P.C., Magistrate can order detention for failure to comply with the order of maintenance only for one month and not for several months for the failure to pay maintenance for the number of months. In respect of his contention the learned counsel pressed into service the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shimada Khatoon and Others v. Amjad Ali and Others (1999) 5 SCC 672 : IX (1999) SLT 392 : I (2000) DOCT 313 (SC) : IV (1999) CCR 268(SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held as follows: “The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned single Judge of the Patna High Court correctly-interpreted sub-section (3) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by directing that the Magistrate can only sentence for a period of one month or until payment, if sooner made. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the liability of the husband arising out of an order passed under Section 125 to make payment of maintenance is a continuing one and on account of non-payment there has been a breach of the order and, therefore, the Magistrate would, be entitled to impose sentence on such a person continuing him in custody until payment is made. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The language of sub-section (3) of Section 125 is quite clear and it circumscribes the power of the Magistrate to impose imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until the payment, if sooner made. This power of the Magistrate cannot be enlarged and therefore, the only remedy would be after expiry of one month. For breach or non-compliance with the order of the Magistrate the wife can approach the Magistrate again for similar relief. By no stretch of imagination can the Magistrate be permitted to impose sentence for more than one month. In that view of the matter the High Court was fully justified in passing the impugned order and-we see no infirmity in the said order to be interfered with by this Court. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed.” 3. Under sub-section (3) of Section 125, Cr.P.C. it has been made clear that the power of the Magistrate imposing imprisonment on the failure of the husband to pay maintenance has been restricted to only one month or until payment if sooner made. After the one month, for every breach, or non-compliance of the order of the Magistrate, wife can approach the Magistrate once again for similar relief. Therefore, the orders of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate made in Crl. M.P. Nos. 794, 795 and 796 of 2003 are set aside since the petitioner has already been in jail for more than 3½ months. These revisions are allowed. The petitioner shall be released. But the Chief Judicial Magistrate is at liberty to pass fresh orders once the wife approaches the court for noncompliance of the maintenance order, but not more than a month on each occasion. The learned Magistrate will also take into consideration the question of limitation with regard to the arrears of maintenance as contemplated in Section 15(3) Cr.P.C. and also the decision in Rajendran v. Minor Revathi rep. The learned Magistrate will also take into consideration the question of limitation with regard to the arrears of maintenance as contemplated in Section 15(3) Cr.P.C. and also the decision in Rajendran v. Minor Revathi rep. by mother Maheshwari; (1997) CMC 80 : (1997) 1 Crimes 486 and Poorani v. Ramanathan (2003) 1 MLJ (Crl) 223 : (2003) Mh.LJ (Cr.) 223. Consequently, Crl. M.P. Nos. 1109, 1110 and 1111 of 2004 are closed.” As such, adverting to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment and other precedents, this Court already held that the Magistrate has no power to detain a person for more than one month at a time and hence the order of the Magistrate in ordering the petitioner to be detained for 12 months at a stretch is an erroneous one, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the order of the Magistrate is set aside and it is restricted to one month only. Accordingly, the Magistrate shall secure the presence of the revision petitioner and sent him to jail for being detained for one month. 11. While disposing of this petition, I would like to highlight and spotlight certain stark realities and the immediate requirement for speedy set up on the part of the legislators and the Government to take remedial measures, so as to alleviate the miseries of the hapless maintenance seekers. 12. Not to put too fine a point on it, a fortiori, in my considered opinion, Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. is to some extent counter productive and it actually deprives the awardee of maintenance to execute the order effectively. It is axiomatic that a person who visits the Magistrate’s Court or the Family Court could come across hundreds and thousands of execution petitions which are pending for recovering the arrears of maintenance. While so, the maintenance seekers have got disillusioned because of the delay. They cannot be expected to file petition after petition fruitlessly without even getting the earlier arrears recovered. By way of adding fuel to fire, if such short limitation of one year is insisted upon for recovering the maintenance, it would certainly be counter productive and hapless and helpless widows, destitutes and minor children will not be able to reap the fruit of the maintenance order. The persons liable to pay maintenance are successfully playing truant and easily wriggling out of the clutches of law. The persons liable to pay maintenance are successfully playing truant and easily wriggling out of the clutches of law. As such, urgent and immediate steps are required to amend section 125(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure suitably and I would also like to recommend that in pathetic and deserving cases, where the awardees of maintenance, are not, in a position to recover the amount should be helped by the Government at the first instance by providing them with the amount hereafter, the Government should recover it from the persons liable to pay maintenance by resorting to Court process or revenue recovery proceedings and to that effect there should also be a legislative amendment and would strongly recommend for the same. 13. With the above observation, this criminal revision petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Petition disposed of.