Wife Needn't File Successive Pleas For Maintenance Recovery: Allahabad High Court Warns Judicial Officers Of Contempt If SC Guidelines Ignored

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed thus while allowing a criminal revision filed by a woman challenging orders of a Family Court in Jaunpur which had rejected her execution application seeking enforcement of a maintenance order passed in her favour under Section 125 CrPC.

Briefly put, the Family Court had earlier allowed the wife's application under Section 125 CrPC and directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance. After the husband cleared the maintenance arrears in the first execution proceedings initiated under Section 128 CrPC, those proceedings were disposed of.

The wife, thereafter, filed a second execution application seeking maintenance for the unpaid intervening month as well as future monthly maintenance in accordance with the maintenance order.

The Family Court initially issued a recovery warrant but recalled it after the husband deposited the arrears for the intervening month. It subsequently rejected the execution application under the proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC, now Section 144(3) BNSS, observing that recovery warrants could not be issued for maintenance that had not yet become due and consigned the proceedings to the record room.

Before the High Court, the wife argued that the maintenance order remained valid and operative and had never been set aside. She contended that by closing the execution proceedings after payment of a single month's arrears, the Family Court had effectively compelled her to institute fresh execution proceedings every time the husband defaulted on future monthly payments.

This, the wife argued, defeated the continuing nature of the maintenance order. She further submitted that the proviso to Section 125 (3) CrPC merely regulates the issuance of recovery warrants and does not extinguish a claimant's entitlement to maintenance or bar its enforcement

Agreeing with the wife's arguments, the High Court found the Family Court's approach to be contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court because it effectively required the wife to initiate fresh execution proceedings each time a subsequent monthly maintenance amount became due even though the husband's obligation to pay maintenance under a subsisting order is a continuing liability.

During the proceedings, the Court specifically sought an explanation from the Presiding Officer as to "whether the wife has to claim the maintenance amount again and again in future by moving an application and for every time she has to move an application for execution of the order granting her maintenance”.

The Court further noted that the Presiding Officer had taken an erroneous plea based on the proviso to Section 144 (3) BNSS, although the law declared by the Supreme Court and the High Court was otherwise

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Shantha Alias Ushadevi v BG Shivananjappa 2005 the High Court reiterated that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social legislation and therefore deserves a liberal interpretation for the welfare of the wife and children.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment, the Court noted that it would be unreasonable to insist upon the filing of successive applications.

The Court further relied upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Poongodi vs Thangavel 2013, wherein it was clarified that the first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC does not create any bar or fetter on claiming arrears of maintenance, and it neither extinguishes nor limits entitlement to arrears of maintenance beyond one year.

According to the Court the one-year limitation only restricts the issuance of a warrant under Section 125 (3), it neither extinguishes the claimants right to arrears nor bars enforcement proceedings under Section 128 CrPC now Section 147 BNSS.

Examining the facts of the present case, the High Court noted that the maintenance order (dated March 4, 2023) had never been set aside and continued to remain operative.

In this case, the wife had earlier initiated execution proceedings under Section 128 CrPC, which were disposed of after the husband cleared arrears up to February 2025. She thereafter filed another execution application seeking payment of maintenance from March 2025 onwards and for future months.

However, after the husband deposited Rs. 5000 towards the arrears for March 2025, the Family Court treated the application as fully satisfied and consigned the matter to the record room.

The High Court held that since the maintenance order continued to operate, the husband remained under a continuous legal obligation to pay monthly maintenance.

Accordingly, it directed him to clear all arrears, if any and continue paying the monthly maintenance amount to the wife, preferably by depositing it directly into her verified bank account

Noting that similar errors are being committed in trial courts across the state, Justice Giri issued statewide directions to all Family Courts and Gram Nyayalayas. The directions which the Court ordered are:

• The trial court shall follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shanta Alias Ushadevi (supra) to the effect that successive execution applications are not required to be filed for receiving monthly maintenance
• The trial court shall also follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Poongodi (supra) to the effect that the first proviso to Section 125 (3) CrPC [Section 144 (3) BNSS] does not create any bar or affect upon the entitlement of a claimant to recover arrears of maintenance beyond a period of one year
• While passing or executing maintenance orders, the trial court shall direct the opposite party/person liable to pay maintenance to deposit the monthly maintenance amount directly into the verified bank account of the applicant/claimant in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Aarti Rai Judgment. 
• Wherever the opposite party is in salaried employment, the trial court shall also direct the concerned department/employer to deduct the maintenance or arrears from the salary/remuneration/honorarium of the opposite party/employee and transfer the same directly into the verified bank account of the applicant/claimant in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Dimple Judgment.
• In the event of refusal of payment of maintenance or nonpayment of maintenance due to insufficiency of funds the trial court shall recover the amount by attaching the property of the opposite party-person liable to pay maintenance in accordance with law and if the attached property is insufficient to clear the unpaid arrears of maintenance an order of simple imprisonment may be directed to be executed for a term which may extend to one month for each months default or until payment if sooner made as per Section 125 (3) CrPC [Section 144 (3) BNSS] and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs Neha 2021.

Issuing a stern warning to judicial officers, the High Court observed thus:

"The above directions as given by the Honble Apex Court as well as this Court if not complied with in letter and spirit by the Presiding Officers of the Family Courts as well as the Gram Nyayalayas of the State of UP the same is liable to attract disciplinary as well as contempt proceedings as per law".

The Court further directed the District Administration and Police Authorities to cooperate in the execution of maintenance orders and ordered that the issue be discussed in Monitoring Cell meetings conducted by District and Sessions Judges across Uttar Pradesh.

It also directed the Registrar Compliance to communicate the judgment to the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, for academic purposes and training of judicial officers.

Case title - Mala Kumari vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 466

Click Here To Read/Download Order