Allahabad High Court Issues Stern Warning to Family Court Judges
In a significant move, the Allahabad High Court has cautioned family court judges and those presiding over gram nyayalayas about the potential for disciplinary and contempt proceedings. This warning arises from the failure to adhere to enforcement orders regarding maintenance in matrimonial disputes, as outlined by both the Supreme Court and the High Court itself.
Case Background: Mala Kumar v State of UP and Another
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, presiding over the matter, emphasized that multiple execution applications are unnecessary, referencing the Supreme Court’s directives. It was highlighted that the party responsible for providing maintenance should deposit the agreed amount directly into the claimant’s verified bank account. For those employed on a salary, the respective employer should be instructed by the trial court to deduct the maintenance dues or any arrears from the salary, facilitating direct transfer to the claimant’s account.
Consequences for Non-Compliance
Failure to comply with these directives could result in attaching the property of the non-compliant party or ordering simple imprisonment, based on the guidelines from the apex court. Justice Giri stated, “If these directions, as issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, are not followed in full by the Presiding Officers of the Family Courts and the Gram Nyayalayas across Uttar Pradesh, it will attract disciplinary and contempt proceedings.”
Support and Monitoring
The court has urged district administration and police authorities in Uttar Pradesh to extend their cooperation in such cases. It also mandated that these matters be deliberated in monitoring cell meetings held by all District and Sessions Judges.
Specific Case Focus
The Bench was considering a criminal revision petition filed by a woman seeking enforcement of a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now updated to Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The order, initially passed in March 2023, directed the woman’s husband to pay ₹5,000 monthly. Despite initial compliance in March 2025, subsequent applications for regular payments were filed, leading to today’s High Court intervention.
More Read
Legal Clarifications
The High Court criticized the family court’s failure to consider higher court observations that negate the necessity for successive execution applications. It was clarified that Section 125(3) CrPC does not restrict a claimant from recovering maintenance arrears beyond a year. The Supreme Court has previously observed that while the first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC limits procedural recovery actions, it does not extinguish the claimant’s right to arrears recovery.
Final Directions
The High Court instructed the husband to settle any outstanding maintenance arrears up to the present date and continue monthly payments without delay. The petitioner was represented by Advocate P.K. Upadhyay, while Advocate Mayank Awasthi appeared for the State.
