In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court examined a plea arising from a prolonged maintenance dispute under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The case revolved around recovery of unpaid interim maintenance and the execution powers of the trial court.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to a marriage solemnised in 1990. According to the applicant-wife, she was subjected to harassment over dowry demands and was eventually forced out of her matrimonial home along with her son.
Years later, after a brief reconciliation, the relationship broke down again in 2017. The wife alleged that her husband refused to provide financial support despite having sufficient income.
This led her to approach the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, seeking relief including maintenance.
In July 2019, the trial court granted interim maintenance of ₹8,000 per month ₹4,000 for the wife and ₹4,000 for their differently-abled son.
The court noted the husband’s obligation, observing that:
“Every husband has legal, social and moral responsibility towards his wife and children.”
The husband challenged this order before the Sessions Court, but the appeal was dismissed in April 2022. His further challenge before the High Court also failed in November 2022.
With maintenance remaining unpaid, the wife initiated execution proceedings seeking recovery of ₹2,64,000 covering arrears from July 2019 to April 2022.
The trial court issued a recovery warrant. Acting on it, the husband was arrested and later sent to civil prison for 30 days after refusing to deposit the amount.
Despite his release, the dues remained unpaid. The wife then filed another application seeking fresh recovery action.
The High Court examined the sequence of proceedings, including:
- The original grant of interim maintenance
- Dismissal of appeals at multiple levels
- Execution proceedings and coercive steps taken by the trial court
The bench noted that the maintenance order had already attained finality after being upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court earlier.
It also took note of the wife’s claim regarding continued non-payment and the trial court’s partial rejection of her execution plea concerning recovery.
After hearing the parties, the High Court dealt with the challenge to the trial court’s execution order.
The Court proceeded to examine whether interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was warranted in the facts of the case, particularly in relation to recovery of maintenance dues and execution mechanisms adopted by the lower court.
The matter was decided accordingly, with the High Court addressing the relief sought in the application and the legality of the impugned order passed in execution proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Hasina Khatoon vs State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Application U/s 482 No. 7721 of 2023
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Decision Date: 24 March 2026
