Allahabad HC warns family court judges of contempt of court for failure to enforce maintenance orders

The Allahabad High Court Friday warned family court and gram nyayalaya judges of disciplinary and contempt proceedings for failure to comply with directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court for enforcement of maintenance orders in matrimonial cases [Mala Kumar v State of UP and Another]

Justice Praveen Kumar Giri said successive execution applications are not required to be filed as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It also said that the opposite party (man) must deposit the monthly maintenance amount directly into the verified bank account of the claimant.

Further, the High Court said wherever the opposite party is in salaried employment, the trial court shall direct the employer to deduct the maintenance or arrears from the salary and transfer the same directly into the verified bank account of claimant.

The Bench added that in case of refusal or insufficiency of funds, property of the opposite party be attached or simple imprisonment be ordered in accordance with the law laid downy the top court.

"The above directions, as given by the Hon’ble 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 U.P., the same is liable to attract disciplinary, as well as contempt proceedings as per law," the Court said.

The Court also ordered the district administration and police authorities in Uttar Pradesh to cooperate in such matters. It added that the matter shall also be discussed in the monitoring cell meetings conducted by all the District and Sessions Judges.

The Bench was dealing with a criminal revision petition filed by a woman for enforcement of an order of maintenance directing her husband to pay ₹5,000 to her per month under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is now Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

After the order was passed in March 2023, the woman moved for its enforcement which was decided in March 2025 with payment of arrears by the husband.

However, she subsequently filed another application for enforcement of maintenance order for month of March and regular payment from April, 2025. It was disposed of when the husband paid ₹5,000 for the month of March.

The family court observed that a recovery warrant cannot be issued for future monthly maintenance amounts that were yet to become due.

The woman then moved the High Court.

In its order today, the High Court said the family court had not considered the Supreme Court and High Court's observations in several judgments that successive execution applications are not required to be filed.

It also said that Section 125(3) CrPC does not create any bar a claimant from recovering arrears of maintenance beyond a period of one year.

"Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the first proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. does not prevent a person entitled to maintenance from claiming arrears of maintenance for a period beyond one year. The period of one year provided in the first proviso only limits the procedure for the recovery of maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. by the issuance of a warrant for the recovery of the amount, and the detention of the defaulter in custody does not extinguish the right of the claimant to recover the arrears of maintenance," it said.

Accordingly, the Court directed the husband to clear the arrears of maintenance, if any, till today and continue to pay the monthly maintenance amount to his wife.

Advocate PK Upadhyay represented the petitioner.

Advocate Mayank Awasthi appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]