At the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Justice L. Victoria Gowri on Thursday set aside a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) issued against a Kovilpatti man for defaulting on long-pending maintenance, observing that trial courts must not rush into coercive steps without recording why a lesser measure wouldn’t work. The hearing, though technical at points, often slipped into frank exchanges-especially when the bench questioned the absence of even a basic bailable warrant before the NBW was issued.
Background
The case arose from a 2016 maintenance order directing Alagarsamy to pay ₹6,000 monthly to his wife, Mangalasundari, and ₹4,000 to his daughter, besides arrears. According to the wife, arrears had piled up to over ₹5 lakh, though the husband contested the figure sharply, calling it “wildly inflated.”
When the Judicial Magistrate-I, Kovilpatti, took up the enforcement petition last year, the court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant to secure the husband’s presence. This triggered the revision petition before the High Court, limited strictly to the legality of the NBW-not the maintenance order itself.
Counsel for the husband argued that the Magistrate “jumped straight to an NBW” without using the ordinary sequence of summons, then bailable warrant, and only thereafter NBW. Maintenance proceedings, he stressed, are quasi-civil, meant to ensure support-not to punish.
The wife’s counsel opposed this, saying the man had been served, had filed a counter, and then simply stopped appearing. “The Magistrate had every reason to believe he was evading,” he said.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle
Court’s Observations
Justice Gowri took a measured approach, acknowledging that while the husband did default, the Magistrate’s order lacked clarity and statutory compliance.
The Court pointed out that applications for arrears beyond 12 months cannot be processed under Section 125(3) CrPC, which deals with imprisonment, but must proceed under Section 128 CrPC, which focuses on recovery through attachment of property. Yet the Magistrate had issued what appeared to be a distress warrant-typically linked with Section 125-without specifying the legal basis.
“The bench observed, ‘When liberty is involved, courts must speak clearly. A non-bailable warrant cannot be issued like a routine formality.’”
Justice Gowri also noted that the record did not show the use of a bailable warrant before invoking the harsher NBW. The Court recalled Supreme Court precedents emphasising that NBWs are to be used only as a last resort, after lesser methods fail.
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
At one point the judge remarked that even though the petitioner had “not shown great bona fides,” procedural lapses cannot be ignored, especially when they touch Article 21 protections.
Decision
The High Court ultimately set aside the NBW, holding that it suffered from procedural irregularity. It directed the Magistrate to issue a bailable warrant first, and continue execution strictly under the correct statutory provision.
In a balancing move, the Court also required the husband to deposit 50% of the admitted arrears within four weeks, making it clear that non-payment cannot be shielded behind technicalities.
The ruling concluded with a reminder: “Maintenance law is for social justice, not harassment, nor evasion.” Execution must proceed firmly, but fairly-without shortcuts that compromise personal liberty.
Case Title: Alagarsamy vs. Mangalasundari & Devi Meenakshi
Case No.: Crl RC (MD) No. 804 of 2023
Case Type: Criminal Revision Petition (Challenge to NBW in maintenance execution)
Decision Date: 20 November 2025