Maintenance default imprisonment does not wipe out arrears; jail is only a coercive recovery measure.

Imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure operates as a coercive mode of enforcement and does not extinguish the arrears. The maintenance liability is satisfied only by actual payment of the outstanding amount, and the defaulting spouse remains liable even after undergoing the sentence. Chapter IX is described as providing a complete scheme for adjudication, enforcement, and recovery of maintenance, with jail intended to compel compliance rather than discharge the debt. The arrears therefore continue to be recoverable notwithstanding imprisonment already suffered.

---

---

Issues: Whether imprisonment of a person defaulting in payment of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 extinguishes the arrears or merely operates as a mode of enforcing recovery.

Analysis: Chapter IX of the Code provides a complete scheme for adjudication of maintenance, enforcement of the order, and the mode of recovery. Under Section 125(3), imprisonment may be imposed for failure to comply, but the purpose of such imprisonment is to compel payment and not to discharge the liability. Actual satisfaction of the maintenance order occurs only on payment of the arrears, and the defaulting spouse is not absolved merely because a sentence of jail has been undergone.

Conclusion: Imprisonment under Section 125(3) does not wipe out the arrears of maintenance, and the amount remains recoverable notwithstanding the sentence already suffered.

---