Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1140
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Praveen Kumar Giri, J.
Mala Kumari - Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. - 1552 of 2026
Decided On : 24-07-2026
For the Revisionist : Kalpna Upadhyay, P.k. Upadhyay
For the Opposite Party : G.A.
Maintenance is a continuing liability. The statutory limitation period in the relevant procedural sections pertains only to the issuance of recovery warrants and does not extinguish the substantive right to maintenance or bar enforcement, rendering the requirement of successive applications for ongoing monthly payments legally unwarranted.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 and 128 - Indian Citizen Security Code, 2023 - Sections 144 and 147 - Maintenance - Execution of order - Limitation - Proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC / 144(3) BNSS - Does not create a bar or fetter on entitlement to arrears of maintenance nor does it limit the enforcement mechanism under Section 128 CrPC / 147 BNSS - Period of limitation provided therein limits the procedure for recovery by way of warrant but does not extinguish the substantive right to recover arrears. (Paras 12, 13, 17, 18)
(B) Maintenance - Continuing liability - It is unreasonable and unnecessary to insist on filing successive applications for the recovery of monthly maintenance as the liability to pay remains operative until modified or set aside by a competent court. (Paras 15, 17)
(C) Procedural Guidelines - Maintenance order compliance - Trial courts directed to ensure maintenance is deposited directly into the bank accounts of the claimant and in cases of employment, to involve the employer to ensure salary deduction, preventing unnecessary procedural delays. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The revisionist filed an application for maintenance which was allowed. After the execution of the initial maintenance order where arrears were paid, the applicant sought continued enforcement for subsequent months. The lower court rejected the application, erroneously applying the one-year limitation period prescribed in the proviso to the governing procedural code, treating the maintenance application as time-barred for future enforcement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the refusal to execute the maintenance order was legally flawed. The maintenance order constitutes a continuing liability, and procedural limitations regarding warrant issuance do not override the substantive right of the claimant to receive ongoing support. The lower court's insistence on successive applications is contrary to established legal principles regarding social welfare legislation.
Issues: Whether the one-year limitation period prescribed in the proviso to the maintenance provision bars the substantive enforcement of an order and whether the filing of successive execution applications for ongoing monthly maintenance is a mandatory legal requirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to the relevant procedural code creates a limited procedural restriction on the issuance of recovery warrants but does not extinguish the underlying entitlement to maintenance. Therefore, courts must ensure efficient enforcement mechanisms, such as direct bank transfers, to avoid requiring claimants to engage in repeated, unnecessary litigation for a recurring liability.
Result: Revision allowed; directions issued for future compliance.
JUDGMENT :
Praveen Kumar Giri, J.
1. Heard Shri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Mayank Awasthi, learned State Counsel.
2. None appears on behalf of opposite party No.2. However, notice has been served upon opposite party No.2 as per the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 01.05.2026 as well as the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur dated 06.05.2026.
3. This Court, vide order dated 13.04.2026, issued notice to the opposite party No.2 (husband) to appear in person or through counsel to file counter affidavit and also sought explanation from the Presiding Officer of the concerned court and directed that the same be furnished by the next date, i.e., on 28.04.2026 on the facts as mentioned in the order. The relevant portion of order dated 13.04.2026 passed by this Court is delineated below:-
"1. Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause. The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to allow the present criminal revision and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2025 and 27.01.2026 Passed by Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Jaunpur, in Misc. Case no. 641 of 2025 (MalaKumari Vs. Anand Kunwar) filed under section 147 B.N.S.S., whereby learned Additional Principal Judge Family Court-I, Jaunpur has dismissed the case,
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- w.e.f. April 2025 an onwards month to month to the revisionist pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by Ld. Additional Principal Judge Family Court-I, Jaunpur in case no. 416 of 2018 (Mala Kumari Vs. Anand Kunwar) under section 125 Cr.P.C., during the pendency of the present criminal revision."
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that wife/revisionist filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 11.05.2018 seeking grant of maintenance amount from her husband/O.P. No.2. He further submits that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided on merits providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties vide order dated 04.03.2023 whereby O.P. No.2/husband has been directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to his wife/revisionist from the date of application i.e. 11.05.2018. The operative part of the order dated 04.03.2023 is being pasted below :-
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that for execution of order dated 04.03.2023, the revisionist filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2023, which was numbered as Case no.891 of 2023 (Mala vs. Anand Kunwar) and same was finally adjudicated vide order dated 10.03.2025, as husband of the revisionist has deposited the amount of maintenance and in the order dated 10.03.2025, it was mentioned that the entire arrears of the maintenance amount upto February, 2025 has been paid by O.P. No.2/husband. The order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur is being pasted below :-
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the entire amount of arrears of maintenance upto February, 2025 was paid by O.P. No.2/husband and thereafter the Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur vide order dated 10.03.2025, has disposed of the application filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. but for continuous payment of maintenance amount i.e. Rs.5000/- per month as well as for arrears for the month of March, 2025, the revisionist has filed another application under Section 128 Cr.P.C./147 BNSS on 09.04.2025, which was numbered as C
