The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that a maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) creates a continuing obligation and cannot be rendered ineffective merely because one execution proceeding has concluded. Allowing a criminal revision filed by Mala Kumari, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held that a wife should not be compelled to file successive execution applications each time a fresh monthly maintenance amount becomes due.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a maintenance order dated March 4, 2023, by the Family Court at Jaunpur directing the husband, Anand Kunwar, to pay ₹5,000 per month to his wife from the date of her maintenance application filed in May 2018.
According to the record, the husband later cleared the maintenance arrears up to February 2025, leading to disposal of the first execution proceedings. However, when the wife sought recovery of the March 2025 amount and continuation of monthly maintenance through a fresh execution application, the Family Court dismissed her plea after noting that the March 2025 amount had been deposited and treated the proceedings as fully satisfied.
The wife challenged those orders before the High Court, arguing that the original maintenance order had never been cancelled and remained enforceable.
Court's Observations
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri found that the Family Court had adopted an incorrect interpretation of the law while rejecting the execution application.
The Court observed,
“The maintenance order dated 04.03.2023 continues to remain in force and the opposite party No.2 (husband) remains under an obligation to pay maintenance to the revisionist.”
The High Court relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings, including Shanta Alias Ushadevi v. B.G. Shivananjappa and Poongodi v. Thangavel, which clarify that maintenance is a continuing liability. The one-year limitation contained in the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. relates only to the issuance of recovery warrants and does not extinguish the claimant's right to recover maintenance arrears or require repeated execution petitions for every month's default.
The Court also referred to recent Supreme Court decisions encouraging direct transfer of maintenance into the beneficiary's verified bank account and salary deductions where the person liable to pay maintenance is in salaried employment.
Directions Issued by the High Court
Besides granting relief in the present case, the Court issued statewide directions for Family Courts and Gram Nyayalayas in Uttar Pradesh.
It instructed trial courts to:
- Follow Supreme Court rulings recognising maintenance as a continuing obligation.
- Avoid insisting on repeated execution applications for enforcement.
- Prefer direct payment of maintenance into the claimant's verified bank account.
- Where the respondent is salaried, consider directing employers to deduct maintenance from salary and transfer it directly.
- Use lawful recovery measures, including attachment of property or other statutory remedies, where maintenance remains unpaid.
The Court further directed district administration and police authorities to cooperate in enforcing maintenance orders and asked that compliance be discussed during district-level judicial monitoring meetings.
Decision
Allowing the revision, the Allahabad High Court directed the husband to clear all outstanding maintenance arrears, if any, and continue paying ₹5,000 per month in accordance with the Family Court's original order dated March 4, 2023, preferably by depositing the amount into the wife's verified bank account.
The criminal revision was disposed of with the above directions.
Case Details
Case Title: Mala Kumari v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 1552 of 2026
Judge: Hon'ble Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Decision Date: July 24, 2026
 Act, 2007 KAAPA-300x169.webp)
