JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 08.01.2015, whereby the petitioner was imprisoned for a period of 12 months SI It is due to non-payment of amount of maintenance despite order under Section 125 Cr.RC. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C., maximum period of sentence can be of one month, however the court below passed order for imprisonment of 12 months SI in ignorance of the aforesaid. A reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shahada Khatoon & Ors. v. Amjad AM & Ors., reported in 2000 (1) Crimes 12 (SC) 12 has been given. Therein, similar order was quashed by the Apex Court holding that punishment on one application cannot be for a period of more than one month. According to the learned counsel for petitioner that if default in payment remains, the court can pass order of imprisonment separately for each months default but by one order itself, imprisonment cannot be for a period of more than a month. The impugned order, thus deserves to be set aside for imprisonment beyond the period of one month. 3. Learned counsel for non-petitioners and Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. 4. I have considered rival submissions made by the parties and perused the record. 5. The question for my consideration is as to whether on allegations made for non-compliance of the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., punishment can be for a period of more than one month in ignorance of sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.PC. The issue aforesaid was considered and decided by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Jain v. State & Anr., reported in 2005 WLC (Raj.) UC 482 so also in the case of Ashok Kashyap v. Smt. Manbhar & Ors., reported in 2008 WLC (Raj.) 48. Therein, it was held that imprisonment for non-payment of amount of maintenance cannot be beyond one month, rather it can be for one month and until payment is made. The Apex Court however gave liberty for fresh application alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the Magistrate and sentence can be imposed thereupon again. In view of above impugned order needs to be interfered for imprisonment beyond the period of one month. The Apex Court however gave liberty for fresh application alleging non-compliance of the order passed by the Magistrate and sentence can be imposed thereupon again. In view of above impugned order needs to be interfered for imprisonment beyond the period of one month. It is true that payment of maintenance has not yet been made but for that complainant would be at liberty to file separate applications for the period of default, as was directed by the Apex Court in the case of Shahada Khatoon (supra). In that event, the learned court below would pass order on each application for non-compliance. The impugned order is interfered and modified by maintaining imprisonment of the petitioner for a period of one month, however, with the liberty as given above. 6. With the aforesaid, criminal misc. petition is disposed of.