JUDGMENT [1] Case is taken up for final disposal in presence of Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S.Datta, counsel appearing for the private respondent as well as Mr.Ratan Datta, learned PP representing the State respondent. [2] The factual back ground of the case is as under: Petitioner Amita Das is the wife of the private respondent whose marriage was solemnized on 12.06.1979 in accordance with the rites of Hindu marriage and after marriage the petitioner accompanied her husband to his place where they lived together for about 2 years in a rented house at Dhaleswar, Agartala. All on a sudden, the respondent husband of the petitioner disappeared. After about 01 month, he returned to the petitioner and they lived in the same rented house at Dhaleswar for a period of 6 months. He again deserted the petitioner after 6 months. He returned home after about 3 ½ years and met the petitioner at her parental home when he assured her that he would never leave her again. They rented a house at Indranagar and stayed together at that house for about 15 months. During that period of their staying together, a son was born to them. 03 months after the birth of the son, the respondent again deserted his wife. Hapless petitioner started working in a press to earn her livelihood. 14 years thereafter, her husband returned and stayed together with the petitioner for about 7 days at her parental home. Again he left the petitioner for Guwahati. Subsequently, he had taken his petitioner wife to Guwahati where they lived together in different rented houses at different places for about 3 years, before the respondent left the petitioner again. Then the petitioner came to know about the reason of frequent disappearance of her husband. She came to know that her husband contracted a second marriage at Guwahati who was living in Guwahati. After she came to know about the second marriage of her husband, matrimonial discord developed between them. Ultimately, the petitioner was compelled to leave Guwahati. Having returned to Agartala, she filed petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance allowance from her husband which was registered in the Family Court at Agartala as case No.Misc.157 of 2011. By judgment and order dated 13.06.2014, petitioner was granted monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/-. Ultimately, the petitioner was compelled to leave Guwahati. Having returned to Agartala, she filed petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance allowance from her husband which was registered in the Family Court at Agartala as case No.Misc.157 of 2011. By judgment and order dated 13.06.2014, petitioner was granted monthly maintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/-. [3] The respondent husband having failed to pay the maintenance allowance so granted to the petitioner by the Family Court, she approached the Family Court seeking enforcement of the order in terms of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Her case was registered in the Family Court as Case No. Misc 341 of 2014. [4] Learned Family Court found that a sum of Rs.66,000/- fell due to the petitioner as arrear of such maintenance allowance. By an order dated 09.08.2019 passed in the aforesaid Misc. case No.341 of 2014, the Family Court proceeded to recover the arrear by issuing an warrant to the jurisdictional Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of the property of the respondent. Thereafter, in view of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Sub-Divisional Magistrate(SDM), the Family Court by the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 dismissed her petition for recovery of the arrear maintenance allowance holding as under: “Petitioner is present. Received the report of SDM, Sadar. On perusal of the report dated 20.08.2019 submitted by SDM, Sadar shows that the OP has already leased out land of Khatian No.1785 in the name of younger brother Swapan Das. Hence, such property cannot be attached. In view of the above report of SDM, Sadar this court finds no scope to attach the immovable property of the OP. Petitioner also submitted that she has no other alternative to take further steps for realization of the arrear maintenance so du against the OP. Considering the submission of the petitioner, petitioner is granted to liberty to approach this court after obtaining proper documents of the JD for realization of arrear maintenance so due. In view of the above, the instant case is disposed of granting a liberty to the petitioner to approach this court afresh by obtaining the property particulars of the JD. Make necessary entries in the TR.” [5] Aggrieved petitioner has challenged the said order dated 31.08.2019 of the Family Court by means of filing this Criminal Revision Petition. In view of the above, the instant case is disposed of granting a liberty to the petitioner to approach this court afresh by obtaining the property particulars of the JD. Make necessary entries in the TR.” [5] Aggrieved petitioner has challenged the said order dated 31.08.2019 of the Family Court by means of filing this Criminal Revision Petition. [6] Mr.R.G.Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has dismissed her petition for recovery of her arrear maintenance of a sum of Rs.66,000/- without exhausting the procedure laid down under sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. Counsel submits that the Family Court should have imprisoned the petitioner for breach of the order after it was found that the arrear was not recoverable by issuing a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines. Counsel urges the Court for issuing direction to the Family Court for taking action in term of sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. [7] Mr.S.Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this Court directing the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner within 10 days pending disposal of this case. Counsel submits that the respondent does not maintain any rapport with him. Therefore, the learned counsel of the respondent urges the Court to pass order as this Court may deem fit and proper. [8] Mr.R.Datta, learned PP contends that the Family Court may be directed to take appropriate measures for recovery of the arrear maintenance allowance from the defaulting husband. [9] Perused the record. Considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties. [10] There is merit in the submissions of the counsel of the petitioner that the Family Court should have proceeded in accordance with the law laid down under sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. by way of sentencing the respondent husband of the petitioner to imprisonment for breach of every order to recover the maintenance after the process for recovery of the amount by way of levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines failed. Obviously, respondent husband has failed to show any reason as to why he has failed to comply with the order of the Family Court with regard to payment of maintenance allowance. Obviously, respondent husband has failed to show any reason as to why he has failed to comply with the order of the Family Court with regard to payment of maintenance allowance. Moreover, it would appear from the order dated 22.09.2021 passed by this Court that the respondent appeared before this Court in person and submitted that the was trying to sell out his property to pay the arrear maintenance allowance to his wife. An adjournment was then granted in favour of him for this purpose. Meanwhile he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to his wife. It is contended by the counsel of the petitioner that the respondent did not comply with this order. [11] For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the Family Court in Misc. (Ex) 341 of 2014 is set aside. [12] Since the process of recovering arrear maintenance allowance in the manner provided for levying fine has failed, the Family Court will take steps to recover the amount from the respondent by sentencing him to imprisonment for the unpaid amount in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. immediately. [13] Send down the LC record along with a copy of this order to the Family Court for immediate compliance. [14] In terms of the above, the matter is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of .