Maintenance | Multiplication Of 'Non-Compulsive' Litigation Creating Unwarranted Burden On Family Courts: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the multiplication of "optional and non-compulsive litigation” is creating an unwarranted burden on Family Courts and causing delay in the disposal of matters.
A bench Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a woman seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of an execution case concerning maintenance payable by her husband.
The petitioner had approached the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Lucknow, to expeditiously decide the Execution Case.
The execution case was filed on July 19, 2024, to enforce a June 2024 order passed by the Family Court in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC. Under that order, the petitioner's husband was directed to pay ₹7,000 per month in maintenance.
The Court noted that, according to the petitioner's affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the Family Court, she had also instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, in which an order had been passed directing payment of ₹4,500 as maintenance.
The Court further recorded that the parties had entered into a settlement under which the husband had agreed to pay ₹1.51 lakh and return certain goods, following which the parties were to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent.
The husband paid ₹50,000 in part performance of the settlement. However, the settlement did not subsequently result in a suit for divorce by mutual consent.
The Court noted that the petitioner had not filed any petition either for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights and was "merely fighting for getting maintenance from her husband in different proceedings before different Courts".
The High Court, however, clarified that the petitioner did have a legal right to institute multiple proceedings seeking maintenance under different statutory provisions. It observed thus:
"Although she had a legal right to institute numerous proceedings claiming maintenance under various statutory provisions but when she claims to be unable to maintain herself and afford even the basic necessities for survival, it does not appear to be proper to multiply non-compulsive litigation".
The Court also noted that the petitioner's failure to file proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights or divorce indicated that she was interested in claiming maintenance from her husband before various fora, rather than settling the matrimonial dispute either through restoration of the matrimonial relationship or dissolution of the marriage.
In a significant observation on the burden faced by Family Courts, Justice Vidyarthi remarked thus:
"Multiplication of optional and non-compulsive litigation is creating an unwarranted burden on the Family Courts which is causing delay in disposal of matters".
The Court also observed that while all courts were functioning under a heavy workload, "the Family Courts especially have been artificially overburdened with workload by multiplying litigation with similar object by numerous litigants, including the petitioner".
Against this backdrop, the Court found no good ground to issue a direction to the Family Court for expeditious disposal of the pending maintenance execution proceedings.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Case Title - Shashi Gupta vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704
Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 704