Remedy For Non-Payment Of Revised Maintenance Is Execution Of Order Before Magistrate, Not Contempt Proceedings: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the appropriate remedy for non-payment of maintenance ordered as per criminal revision petition before the High Court is to execute the order before the Magistrate court. It also observed that contempt proceedings before the High Court would not be maintainable in such circumstances.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar dismissed a contempt case initiated by a wife against the husband for failing to comply with the order of the High Court in a criminal revision preferred against the Sessions Court's order enhancing maintenance ordered by the Magistrate.
The wife had approached the Magistrate Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) and it had directed the husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/-. In appeal, the Sessions Court enhanced it to Rs. 7500 per month and also ordered residence in shared household.
Aggrieved, the husband preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court, which allowed it in part. In revision, the Court ordered him to pay Rs. 3000 as monthly rent for alternative accommodation from the date on which the wife vacated household. It also reduced maintenance to Rs. 4000 per month.
After the respondent husband failed to comply with the High Court order, wife preferred the contempt proceedings. The respondent's counsel contended the appropriate remedy is to execute the order before the Magistrate instead of contempt proceedings.
The Court placed reliance on various precedents laid down by the Supreme Court and various High Courts. It also referred to Section 28 of the DV Act, which lays down that the procedure in case of non-failure of respondent to pay monetary reliefs as per Section 20 shall be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court observed:
“Therefore, it is evident that in a case of the present nature the remedy is to execute the order as per the procedure established by law and not to move this Court by filing a contempt petition. Since the petitioner herein has approached this Court directly by filing a contempt petition without resorting to any of the above remedies, this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.”
However, it also gave liberty to the petitioner wife to approach the appropriate court for execute of the order.
Case No: Con. Case (C) No. 2417 of 2025
Case Title: Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Counsel for the petitioner: Luke J Chirayil, Navaneeth Krishnan P.K., Jacob Victor, Neha Ramakrishnan, Vysakh C.S., Zainudheen P.
Counsel for the respondent: P.T. Dinesh