'Systemic Failure': Allahabad High Court Seeks Explanation From Judicial Officers For Ignoring SC & HC Directives On Maintenance

A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed thus while hearing a petition seeking a direction to expedite the proceedings in a Complaint Case u/s 12 of 2005 Act, pending before a court of Judicial Magistrate in Varanasi.

The petitioner-wife had instituted the domestic violence complaint on November 6, 2018. The respondent-husband was served with notice on May 28, 2019, but since he failed to appear before the court, an ex-parte proceedings were initiated on September 23, 2019.

Subsequently, the husband appeared for the first time only on January 29, 2021. Thereafter, on September 7, 2021, the trial court granted interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month in favor of the wife.

Aggrieved with the order, the husband challenged the same before the revisional court, which reduced the maintenance amount to ₹10,000 per month. The petitioner-wife, in turn, filed a Criminal Revision plea before the HC.

The HC, after taking into account that the respondent-husband was employed as a Section Engineer in the Indian Railways, earning approximately ₹1,10,000 per month, restored the interim maintenance to ₹15,000 per month.

However, the wife had to move the HC again as the orders for maintained were not complied with by the Husband.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Gopal Khare submitted in the HC that despite the pendency of the case since 2018, not a single penny has been paid by the husband to date.

The petitioner, it was submitted, had been living a life of destitution without any financial support, even though her husband draws a substantial salary.

The wife further claimed that her husband's non-compliance of the Court's order had led to accumulated arrears of ₹4,55,000/- and even the courts failed to enforce payment or follow binding judicial directions.

After perusing the record of the case, Justice Diwakar noted with dismay that neither the trial court nor the revisional court had directed the respondent-husband to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities, despite explicit directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha 2021 and of the High Court in Parul Tyagi vs. Gaurav Tyagi 2023.

"Such inaction amounts to disregard and non-compliance with binding precedents of the constitutional courts, reflecting a state of indifference by the courts concerned", the Bench observed.

Justice Diwakar further said that an earlier direction issued by the HC in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of UP 2024, wherein recovery of maintenance from the husband's salary was mandated, had also not been complied with.

"The conduct reflects a systemic failure and erodes the confidence of litigants in the judicial system", the Court remarked.

The single judge added that it was unfortunate that repeated directions to subordinate courts to act "with sensitivity, awareness and responsibility" in maintenance and domestic violence matters were not being followed.

Against this backdrop, the HC directed the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi, to furnish an explanation mentioning the legal impediments that prevented compliance with the constitutional courts' directions to obtain affidavits of assets and liabilities from the parties.

Similarly, the Revisional Court was also directed to submit an explanation indicating the material on record on the basis of which it had reduced the maintenance from ₹15,000 to ₹10,000 per month.

The Bench cautioned that 'evasive' replies may invite administrative action.