Allahabad HC Decries 'Systemic Failure' of Lower Courts in Enforcing Maintenance Orders

Varanasi, India – The Allahabad High Court has issued a powerful indictment of the subordinate judiciary, expressing grave concern over a "systemic failure" and a pervasive "state of indifference" in complying with binding directives from constitutional courts, particularly in maintenance cases under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In a sternly worded order, the Court has demanded explanations from two lower court judges for their failure to adhere to established legal precedents, signaling a potential move towards stricter administrative oversight.

The scathing observations were made by a single-judge bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar while hearing a petition from a wife who has been embroiled in a legal battle for maintenance since 2018 without receiving a single rupee from her estranged husband, a high-earning Section Engineer in the Indian Railways.

---

The Factual Matrix: A Litigant's Protracted Ordeal

The case before the High Court starkly illustrates the very problem it seeks to address. The petitioner-wife initiated a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on November 6, 2018, before a Judicial Magistrate in Varanasi.

Despite the husband being served notice on May 28, 2019, he failed to appear, leading to ex-parte proceedings being initiated on September 23, 2019. He eventually made his first appearance nearly a year and a half later, on January 29, 2021.

On September 7, 2021, the trial court granted an interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month. The husband, who earns approximately ₹1,10,000 per month, challenged this order before a revisional court, which, in a perplexing move, reduced the amount to ₹10,000 per month. The wife was then compelled to file a Criminal Revision plea before the High Court, which subsequently restored the original maintenance amount of ₹15,000.

However, the legal victories proved hollow. The husband continued to defy the court's orders, leading to accumulated arrears of ₹4,55,000. As submitted by Advocate Gopal Khare, appearing for the petitioner, the wife has been living a life of destitution for years, while the judicial system failed to enforce its own orders and provide her with the financial support she is legally entitled to. This led her back to the High Court, seeking expedition and enforcement.

---

A "State of Indifference": Disregard for Binding Precedent

Upon reviewing the case records, Justice Diwakar expressed dismay at a fundamental procedural lapse by both the trial and revisional courts. Neither court had directed the parties, particularly the respondent-husband, to file an affidavit of their assets and liabilities.

This inaction stands in direct contravention of the clear and mandatory guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in its landmark 2021 judgment, Rajnesh vs. Neha . The apex court, aiming to streamline and expedite maintenance proceedings, had made the filing of such affidavits compulsory to ensure a fair and objective assessment of the parties' financial capacities. This directive was further reinforced by the Allahabad High Court itself in Parul Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi (2023) .

Justice Diwakar observed that the failure to implement these explicit instructions was not a mere oversight but a serious lapse. "Such inaction amounts to disregard and non-compliance with binding precedents of the constitutional courts, reflecting a state of indifference by the courts concerned," the Bench noted.

The Court further highlighted that another High Court directive from Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of UP (2024) , which mandated the recovery of maintenance arrears directly from the husband's salary, had also been ignored. This multi-layered non-compliance painted a grim picture of judicial apathy.

---

Systemic Failure and Erosion of Public Trust

Justice Diwakar broadened his critique from the specifics of the case to the wider implications for the justice system. The repeated failure to follow clear legal mandates, he argued, goes beyond individual error and points to a deeper, more troubling issue.

"The conduct reflects a systemic failure and erodes the confidence of litigants in the judicial system," the Court remarked.

The order lamented that despite repeated circulars and directions from the High Court urging subordinate courts to act "with sensitivity, awareness and responsibility" in matrimonial and domestic violence matters, these pleas were falling on deaf ears. Such cases, which deal with the fundamental right to a dignified life, require prompt and effective adjudication, a principle that was being systematically undermined.

Judicial Accountability Invoked

Taking an exceptionally firm stance, the High Court has moved beyond mere criticism to demand direct accountability. Justice Diwakar has directed the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi, to submit a formal explanation detailing the "legal impediments" that prevented compliance with the Supreme Court's directions regarding the affidavit of assets and liabilities.

Similarly, the Revisional Court judge has been ordered to furnish an explanation clarifying the material basis on which the interim maintenance was reduced from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000, especially in light of the husband's substantial income.

The High Court issued a stern warning that "evasive' replies may invite administrative action." This raises the prospect of disciplinary proceedings against the judicial officers, a measure that underscores the gravity with which the High Court views this systemic lapse.

The case serves as a critical reminder to the legal fraternity and the judiciary about the sanctity of precedent and the non-negotiable duty to enforce the law in a manner that provides timely and tangible relief to litigants. For women seeking maintenance, who are often in positions of extreme vulnerability, the "indifference" of the system can have devastating consequences, turning the pursuit of justice into a prolonged and fruitless ordeal. The High Court's intervention aims to dismantle this very culture of apathy.