The Allahabad High Court has directed all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to dispose of execution applications in maintenance cases within six months, warning that failure to follow the timeline may amount to contempt of court. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri issued the direction while hearing a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife and two minor children. The Court dismissed his plea after refusing to condone a delay of 645 days in filing the revision.
The revision challenged an order dated September 17, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Family Court had directed Data Ram to pay ₹3,000 per month to his wife and ₹1,000 each to their two minor children, with maintenance payable from April 18, 2022.
The husband argued that the amount was not proportionate to his income and sought modification or setting aside of the order. However, when the High Court asked whether the maintenance order had been executed, his counsel could not confirm whether execution proceedings had been initiated.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Periyammal (Dead) v. V. Rajamani, reported in (2025) 9 SCC 568. The Supreme Court had directed High Courts to collect data on pending execution petitions and ensure their disposal within six months through administrative directions.
The Allahabad High Court noted that its Registrar General had already issued a circular dated May 24, 2025, requiring the concerned courts to comply with these directions.
The Court stated, “All the trial courts falling within the jurisdiction of the State of Uttar Pradesh are directed to comply with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Periyammal (supra) and the circular dated 24.05.2025 issued by the Registrar General of this Court and to ensure that execution applications in maintenance cases are decided within a period of six months.”
It further warned that non-compliance “may amount to contempt of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court.”
Finding the explanation for the 645-day delay insufficient, the High Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently rejected the criminal revision as barred by limitation. It directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, for necessary action.
Case Title: Data Ram v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case Number: Criminal Revision (Defective) No. 2005 of 2026
