The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has granted bail and ordered the immediate release of a man who was sentenced to 22 months of imprisonment by a Family Court for failing to pay maintenance arrears. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed that as the revisionist was in civil prison for non-payment, there was no requirement for furnishing bail bonds or sureties.
Background
The case, Tahir @ Babloo vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (Criminal Revision No. 1508 of 2026), arose from an order dated December 16, 2025, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. The Family Court was dealing with an application under Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) [Section 147 BNSS] for the recovery of maintenance amounting to ₹2,64,000, representing 22 months of arrears (from November 1, 2023, to September 1, 2025).
Following the execution of a recovery/arrest warrant, the revisionist, Tahir, was produced before the Family Court on December 3, 2025. Upon his refusal to deposit the amount, the Family Court convicted him and sentenced him to 22 months of imprisonment—calculating one month for every month of default.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the revisionist, Santosh Kumar Singh, argued that the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. He submitted that under the law, if a person fails to make payment, the court may send him to civil prison for a term which may extend to one month, or until payment is sooner made. He contended that the revisionist could not be sent to jail for more than one month and that the court should have proceeded with the attachment of property for recovery instead of an extended jail term.
The State Law Officer, Sri Mayank Awasthi, appeared for the State during the proceedings.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., which states:
“If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may… sentence such person, for the whole, or any part of each month’s allowance… 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.”
The Family Court had relied on various precedents, including the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in D.B. Criminal Reference No. 02/2020, and Supreme Court rulings such as Gorakshnath Khandu Bagal vs. State of Maharashtra (2005) and Shantha vs. B.G. Shivananjappa (2005), to justify the 22-month sentence for 22 months of default.
However, considering the facts and the nature of the detention, the High Court determined that the revisionist was entitled to relief during the pendency of the revision.
The Decision
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri granted bail to Tahir @ Babloo. The Court specifically noted:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the revisionist Tahir @ Babloo… is granted bail and as he is in civil prison, there is no need for furnishing bail bond and sureties and he shall be released forthwith.”
The Court directed the Registrar (Compliance) and the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, to communicate the order to the Jail Superintendent for immediate release. The Court also waived the requirement for a certified copy for the release, allowing verification via the official website. The matter is listed for further hearing on May 18, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Tahir @ Babloo Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Case Number: CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1508 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
- Date of Order: April 2, 2026
