The Allahabad High Court has directed all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure that they decide execution applications in maintenance cases within 6 months. The Court warned that non-compliance to this direction may amount to contempt of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri issued the direction while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor children.

The Court, however, dismissed the revision plea while refusing to condone a delay of 645 days, finding the reasons furnished insufficient.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Periyammal (Dead) v. V. Rajamani 2025, in which the Top Court directed the High Courts to issue an administrative circular requiring trial courts to decide pending execution petitions within six months.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had directed all High Courts to collect information from their respective district judiciaries regarding pending execution petitions.

In this case, the Supreme Court had also said that the concerned Presiding Officer would be answerable to the High Court on its administrative side in case of non-compliance.

The Allahabad High Court observed that its Registrar General had issued a Circular in May 2025, requiring the concerned courts to dispose of pending execution petitions within six months.

Reiterating these directions, the High Court observed thus:

"All the trial courts falling within the jurisdiction of the State of Uttar Pradesh are directed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Periyammal (supra) and the circular dated 24.05.2025 issued by the Registrar General of this Court and to ensure that execution applications in maintenance cases are decided within a period of six months".

The Court added that any failure to comply with these directions may amount to contempt of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of the High Court..

For context, the Court was hearing a man's revision plea challenging a September 2024 order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, under Section 125 CrPC.

The Family Court had directed him to pay ₹3,000 per month to his wife and ₹1,000 per month to each of their two minor children until they attained majority. The maintenance was payable from April 18, 2022, the date the application was filed.

The husband contended that the maintenance amount was not commensurate with his source of income and sought modification or setting aside of the order.

During the hearing, the High Court asked whether the maintenance order had been executed. His counsel stated that he could not say whether any execution application had been filed under Sections 125(3) or 128 CrPC.

Finding that the reasons given did not sufficiently explain the 645-day delay in the revision plea, the Court dismissed the delay condonation application and, consequently, the revision as barred by limitation.

The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to communicate the order to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, for further necessary action.