Judgment : Compendiously and concisely the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus: (i) The respondent herein filed Criminal M.P. No. 1591 of 2006 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, Erode District, for the purpose of enforcing the arrears of maintenance for the period of 15 months so as to say between 3. 2005 and 6. 2006 as the revision petitioner herein failed to pay the maintenance to the respondent as per the order of the Court dated 20.1.2006 made in M.C. No. 4 of 2005 ordering the revision petitioner to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after securing the presence of the revision petitioner herein, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 15 months for such non payment of arrears. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo 15 months imprisonment, this revision is filed on the ground that under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has got no jurisdiction to award more than one month imprisonment at a time, whatever be the arrears. 2. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non application of law in sentencing the revision petitioner to undergo imprisonment for 15 months? 3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would cite the decision of this Court Shahada Khetoon and Others v. Amjad Ali and Another (1999) 5 SCC 672 and develop his argument to the effect that the learned Magistrate was not justified in passing order for detaining the revision petitioner for a period of 15 months. 4. My mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decision of this Court in Mahboob Basha v. Nannima @ Hajara Bibi and Another I (2006) DMC 106 Certain excerpts from it would run thus: “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. 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 Shahada Khetoon and others v. Amjad Ali and Others, (1999)5 SCC 672 : IX (1999) SLT 392 : I (2000) DMC 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 noncompliance 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. 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 3 ½ 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.by mother Maheshwari, I (1997) DMC 80 : (1997) I Crimes 486 and Poorani v. Ramanathan (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 15 months at a stretch is an erroneous one, warranting interference by this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent would cite the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh AIR 1989 SC 232 : (1999) SCC (Crl) 171 and develop his argument to the effect that simply because the revision petitioner undergoes imprisonment, the liability to pay maintenance would not get obliterated. Absolutely, there could be no quarrel over such a proposition. Absolutely, there could be no quarrel over such a proposition. However, in this case since the Magistrate awarded 15 months imprisonment as against one month imprisonment contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. this Court has to exercise its revisional powers to set aside the said order and reduce the period of sentence of 15 months to one month simple imprisonment. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate Court immediately and if he does not surrender, the learned judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, shall issue non bailable warrant, secure his presence and commit him to jail to undergo one month simple imprisonment if not already undergone. Any portion of imprisonment if already gone by him, the same shall be set off as against the period of one month. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that as per the order of suspension dated 3. 2007 passed by this court, some amount was directed to be deposited before the lower Court. The revision petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same. This criminal revision cases accordingly allowed.