Hello Mr. Sai Narayan,
The principle of double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. However, in your case, this principle may not strictly apply, as Section 125(3) CrPC deals with execution of a maintenance order, which is a continuing liability rather than a criminal offense.
Under Section 125(3) CrPC, if a person fails to pay maintenance, the court can issue a warrant for recovery and, in case of non-payment, sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for up to one month or until payment is made. However, the law also states that such imprisonment does not absolve the person from the liability to pay the arrears. If the maintenance remains unpaid even after serving imprisonment, the wife can file another petition for fresh arrears.
To determine if this is a case of double jeopardy, it is crucial to check whether:
1. The same arrears were claimed in both petitions, and the second petition was not for fresh dues.
2. The second imprisonment is based on the same period of arrears for which you have already served the sentence.
If both conditions are met, you can challenge the second imprisonment order before the High Court by filing a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC, arguing that it is violative of Article 20(2) and an abuse of process. You can also file a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court, seeking a stay on the execution of the warrant.
However, if the second petition is for a different period of arrears, then the imprisonment is legally justified, and you may have to seek relief by clearing the outstanding dues or negotiating a modification of the maintenance order.
To discuss further, reach me out at adv.vishesh@icloud.com.