Civil Imprisonment Over Default Doesn't Absolve Husband's Liability To Pay Monthly Maintenance: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri clarified that the doctrine of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC is entirely inapplicable to the execution of maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The bench added that maintenance proceedings result in neither a conviction nor an acquittal, and hence, the court refusing to execute an award of maintenance amount by invoking a plea under Section 300 CrPC would be contrary to the law.

The bench passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Hasina Khatoon, who had challenged a January 2023 order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court (Crime against Women) in Moradabad.

Essentially, in July 2019, a Magistrate directed the petitioner's husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 4K to the wife and Rs 4K to the disabled son.

However, the husband failed to pay the arrears amounting to Rs 2,64,000, and hence, an execution application was moved by the petitioner-wife.

On her plea, a recovery warrant was issued and the husband was arrested on October 30, 2022. As he refused to deposit the maintenance amount awarded by the trial court, the Judicial Magistrate sent him to civil prison for a period of 30 days.

Upon his release, he still failed to pay the maintenance amount to the applicant. Consequently, the applicant made a subsequent application seeking the issuance of a fresh recovery warrant. 

However, this time, her application for the recovery of Rs. 2,64,000/- was rejected on the grounds that her husband had already served a 30-day period of detention in respect of the arrears of maintenance of said amount. The Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court (Crime against Women) relied upon Section 300 CrPC.

On the other hand, the husband defended the order impugned by contending that since he had served out thirty-days term of imprisonment as a penalty, now no arrears remained.

Finally, the husband also challenged the maintainability of the instant application under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the impugned order would be appealable under Section 29 of the DV Act.

In its 42-page order, the bench dealing with wife's plea, at the outset, observed that Section 300 of CrPC is not applicable to proceedings under the DV Act as the proceedings result in neither a conviction nor an acquittal.

"Refusing to execute the awarded maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence Act, by invoking a plea under Section 300 Cr.P.C. appears to be contrary to the law and indicates a non-application of judicial mind by the concerned learned Judicial Magistrate", the bench noted.

The bench relied on the apex court's ruling in Rina Kumari vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 47 to highlight that even if non-compliance with a maintenance order entails penal consequences, the proceedings do not constitute criminal proceedings.

The Court added that merely committing a defaulter to civil prison does not absolve him of the liability to pay monthly maintenance to the aggrieved wife.

Consequently, the HC set aside the impugned order and directed the concerned trial court to pass a fresh order for recovery of the amount of arrears, including simple bank interest at the rate of 6%, on the amount of arrears.

The HC further provided that in case the amount is not deposited by the husband, as he has already served a term of civil detention for the non-payment of maintenance, the trial court of the Judicial Magistrate shall attach his property.

“The proceeds shall be kept in the account of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, or the District Judge, Moradabad, or any other concerned court of the Civil Judge/Magistrate of District Moradabad, to be applied toward the payment of the arrears with simple bank interest at 6% on delayed payment. O.P. No.2 shall continue to pay the current monthly maintenance to the applicant wife and her disabled son on regular basis and, thereafter, proceeds in accordance with law,” the bench further stated in the order.