SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18859

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Prashant Jha – Appellant
Versus
Isha Jha – Respondent
CRR No. 1095 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: In Person
For the Respondents: Rashi Tiwari

In maintenance recovery proceedings, courts must strictly adhere to the procedural sequence under Section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issuance of a warrant for the attachment and sale of movable property is a condition precedent before adopting other recovery measures or sentencing a defaulter to imprisonment.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125(3) and Section 421 - Maintenance proceedings - Enforcement of maintenance order - Procedure for recovery - The Magistrate is empowered to recover maintenance arrears by following the procedure for levying fines - Issuance of a warrant for attachment and sale of movable property is a condition precedent to sentencing a defaulter to imprisonment - Direct recovery of money from a salary or private entity without exhausting the statutory sequence of recovery provided under Section 421 is legally unsustainable. (Paras 21, 23, 25, 26, 31)

Facts of the case:
A husband filed a revision petition challenging orders passed by the family court regarding recovery of maintenance arrears. The family court had issued warrants for attachment and directly directed a private employer to deduct salary to pay arrears without first following the procedural sequence for levy of fine under the relevant code. The husband contended that the family court exceeded its jurisdiction by bypassing the mandatory attachment and sale procedures laid down by law.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the family court acted prematurely by initiating direct salary deductions and issuing recovery warrants without first executing a warrant for the attachment and sale of movable property. The court emphasized that the power to order imprisonment or alternative recovery methods arises only after the specified procedural steps are exhausted. The court also noted that the petitioner suppressed the fact that previous challenges to the maintenance order had already been dismissed by superior benches.

Issues: Whether the family court is empowered to order direct salary deduction or recovery without first strictly adhering to the procedural sequence for levy of fines prescribed under the criminal procedural code.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the sequence prescribed in the code for recovering maintenance arrears is mandatory. Specifically, the issuance of a warrant for attachment and sale of movable property is a condition precedent under Section 421 before resorting to other forms of recovery or imprisonment. Bypassing these steps constitutes a procedural irregularity.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed; impugned recovery orders set aside with a direction for the family court to pass fresh orders strictly following the prescribed legal procedure.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and factual genesis of maintenance claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. prior litigation, suppression of facts, and impugned recovery actions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. parties' contentions regarding maintenance recovery procedure vs. maintainability. (Para 15 , 16)
4. statutory procedure for enforcement of maintenance under cr.p.c. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. application of recovery procedure and rejection of repetitive challenges. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

CAV ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Jha, petitioner in person as well as Ms. Rashi Tiwari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

2. The present revision petition is being filed under section 19(4) of Family Court's Act 1984 read with Section 438 & 442 of BNSS of 2023 by the petitioner with the following prayers :-

(1) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case for it’s kind perusal.

(2) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 31.07.2025, in the interest of justice.

(3) It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased set aside impugned order (Annexure P/2) dated 13.03.2025, in the interest of justice.

(4) That, the Hon’ble Court is requested to set aside M.C.C. No. 502/2022 (Annexure P/3) on ground of cruel behaviour of respondent.”

3. Brief facts as reflects from the pleading and documents annexed with the petition are that the marriage between the petitioner (husband) and the respondent (wife) was solemnized on 10.06.2017 as per their rites and customs. At the time of marriage, it was settled between the parties that the wife will continue her studies at Bilaspur as the husband was also in service at Bilaspur. The brother of the husband has also got married on the next day of the marriage of the parties. Immediately thereafter, the husband and his parents have compared the dowry of the husband and his brother and started teasing the wife and started harassing her. The rude behaviour of the husband and his parents would become aggravating day by day but the matrimonial knot between them was started losing. When the wife complaining the difficulties to her in laws, they also asked her to keep silence and not to disclose the same to her parents and pressurizing her to give divorce to their son (husband). Ultimately, the wife was sent to her parents’ house in the year 2019. Even after repeated efforts and making telephonic calls to the husband, he has not taken her back with him.

4. The husband had filed an application before the learned Family Court, Bemetara, for restitution of conjugal rights. In the proceeding of restitution of conjugal rights, the wife shown her willingness to reside with her husband and had also filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for grant of maintenance pendente-lite. The matter was compromised between the parties and the husband has taken her back with him where she resided with her husband for about 02 months. After about 02 months, the husband again started harassing his wife and pressurized her to give divorce to him and he started abusing and beating her. She again came back to her parents’ house and with the intervention of the community members and senior members of the family, the matter was again settled between them, and she again started residing with her husband. When the incident started again, she returned back to her parents’ house and made a complaint to the Mahila Thana, Raipur. During the counselling, the matter was again compromised with the condition that both of them would reside at Raipur and they started residing at Raipur at Professor Colony, at Raipur in a tenanted house. When the respondent wife was again harassed by the petitioner husband, she started residing at hostel at Purani Basti, Raipur and pursued her studies. Due to finan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top