Mala Kumari vs State Of U.P. And Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1552 of 2026
A.F.R.

Reserved on : 27.05.2026
Delivered on : 24.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on : 24.07.2026
Mala Kumari
…..Revisionist(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Kalpna Upadhyay, P.k. Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 86
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
1. Heard Shri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and
Shri Mayank Awasthi, learned State Counsel.
2. None appears on behalf of opposite party No.2. However, notice
has been served upon opposite party No.2 as per the report of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur dated 01.05.2026 as well as the report of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur dated 06.05.2026.
3. This Court , vide order dated 13.04.2026, issued notice to the
opposite party No.2 (husband) to appear in person or through counsel to
file counter affidavit and also sought explanation from the Presiding
Officer of the concerned court and directed that the same be furnished by
the next date, i.e., on 28.04.2026 on the facts as mentioned in the order.
The relevant portion of order dated 13.04.2026 passed by this Court is
delineated below:-

2
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
"1. Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri
Shashidhar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. Supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the instant criminal revision
has been preferred with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause.
The relief mentioned in the prayer clause of the revision is delineated below:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may graciously be
pleased to allow the present criminal revision and set aside the impugned judgment
and order dated 06.12.2025 and 27.01.2026 Passed by Additional Principal Judge-I,
Family Court, Jaunpur, in Misc. Case no. 641 of 2025 (MalaKumari Vs. Anand
Kunwar) filed under section 147 B.N.S.S., whereby learned Additional Principal
Judge Family Court-I, Jaunpur has dismissed the case,
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the
opposite party no. 2 to pay the maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- w.e.f. April 2025 an
onwards month to month to the revisionist pursuant to the order dated 04.03.2023
passed by Ld. Additional Principal Judge Family Court-I, Jaunpur in case no. 416 of
2018 (Mala Kumari Vs. Anand Kunwar) under section 125 Cr.P.C., during the
pendency of the present criminal revision."
3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that wife/revisionist filed an
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 11.05.2018 seeking grant of maintenance
amount from her husband/O.P. No.2. He further submits that the application under
section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided on merits providing opportunity of hearing to
both the parties vide order dated 04.03.2023 whereby O.P. No.2/husband has been
directed to pay 5000/- per month to his wife/revisionist from the date of
₹
application i.e. 11.05.2018. The operative part of the order dated 04.03.2023 is being
pasted below :-

3
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that for execution of
order dated 04.03.2023, the revisionist filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C.
on 13.04.2023, which was numbered as Case no.891 of 2023 (Mala vs. Anand
Kunwar) and same was finally adjudicated vide order dated 10.03.2025, as husband
of the revisionist has deposited the amount of maintenance and in the order dated
10.03.2025, it was mentioned that the entire arrears of the maintenance amount upto
February, 2025 has been paid by O.P. No.2/husband. The order dated 10.03.2025
passed by Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur is being pasted
below :-
5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the entire amount of
arrears of maintenance upto February, 2025 was paid by O.P. No.2/husband and
thereafter the Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur vide order dated
10.03.2025, has disposed of the application filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. but for

4
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
continuous payment of maintenance amount i.e. 5000/- per month as well as for
₹
arrears for the month of March, 2025, the revisionist has filed another application
under Section 128 Cr.P.C./147 BNSS on 09.04.2025, which was numbered as Case
no.641 of 2025. The application dated 09.04.2025 is delineated below :-

5
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that on the application
dated 09.04.2025, which has been filed just in the next month of the order dated
10.03.2025, the Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur has passed
order of recovery warrant on 29.10.2025 against O.P. No.2/husband, for eleven
months to comply with the order dated 04.03.2023 by which the concerned Family
court has directed O.P. No.2 to pay amount of 5000/- per month to his
₹
wife/revisionist as maintenance. For ready reference order dated 29.10.2025 is being
pasted hereinbelow :-

6
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
7. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter vide order
dated 06.12.2025, the Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur has
modified the order dated 29.10.2025 as O.P. No.2 has deposited 5000/-, which was
₹
arrear of maintenance amount for the month of March, 2025 and the recovery warrant
issued vide order dated 29.10.2025 for rest of the months was withdrawn by the
Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur, without giving any reason,
while arrears of the maintenance amount upto 29.10.2025 i.e. 55000/- was already
₹
due. For ready reference order dated 06.12.2025 is being pasted below :-

7
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that by application dated
09.04.2025 filed under Section 128 Cr.P.C./147 BNSS, the revisionist made prayer
for continuance of the maintenance from April, 2025 and onwards as well as for
arrears of maintenance for the month of March, 2025, but the Additional Principal
Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur vide order dated 27.01.2026 taking plea of Section
144(3) Proviso of BNSS (corresponding Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.) has rejected the
application dated 09.04.2025 mentioning that O.P. No.2 has deposited 5000/- (i.e.
₹
arrear of March, 2025) in the account of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur
and its receipt has been provided to the court of Additional Principal Judge Ist,
Family Court, Jaunpur, therefore, the entire amount has been received by the
revisionist and the record of the maintenance case of the revisionist has been
consigned to record and by doing the same against the provisions of law, the
Additional Principal Judge Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur has also recalled the order
dated 04.03.2023 by which O.P. No.2/husband was directed to pay 5000/- per
₹

8
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
month to his wife/revisionist towards maintenance, therefore, the order dated
27.01.2026 is against the provisions of law. For ready reference, the order dated
27.01.2026 is being pasted below :-

9
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that in Section
144(3) Proviso of BNSS/125(3) Proviso of Cr.P.C., it has only been provided
that, “no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under
this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount
within a period of one year from the date on which it became due”. He
further submits that the application was moved which was after one month on
09.04.2025 and the amount of maintenance has been cleared till February,
2025 and the same has been observed in the order dated 10.03.2025 passed
by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur. For ready reference the first
proviso of Section 144(3) as well as Section 125(3) are being delineated
below :-
First Proviso of Section 144 (3) BNSS
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any
amount due under this section unless application be made to the
Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the
date on which it became due:
First Proviso of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any
amount due under this section unless application be made to the
Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the
date on which it became due:
10. The matter requires consideration.
11. Issue notice to O.P. No.2 returnable at early date through
concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Steps be taken within three
days.
12. Two weeks' time is granted to the opposite parties for filing
counter affidavit. ”
4. On 28.04.2026, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2
(husband), nor any report with regard to the service of notice was
submitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The explanation
furnished by the Presiding Officer was also found to be unsatisfactory,
therefore, the Presiding Officer was again directed to furnish his

10
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
explanation by 08.05.2026. T he relevant portion of the order dated
28.04.2026 passed by this Court is delineated below:- :
"1. This Court, vide order dated 13.04.2026, issued notice to Opposite Party
No. 2 through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur. However, no report has
been submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur till date.
2. Further, the explanation furnished by the Presiding Officer, namely Sri Vimal
Prakash Arya, Additional Principal Judge, 1st Family Court, Jaunpur, is found
to be unsatisfactory, inasmuch as this Court, in its order dated 13.04.2026
(paragraph no. 19), had specifically directed him to submit his explanation as to
whether the amount of maintenance granted vide order dated 04.03.2023 has
been closed finally and whether wife has to claim maintenance amount again
and again in future by moving an application and for every time she has to
move an application for execution of the order dated 04.03.2023.
3. It is further noted that the application dated 09.04.2025 filed by the
revisionist, whereby payment of continuous maintenance from the month of
April, 2025 onwards was sought to be ensured from Opposite Party No. 2, has
also not been properly addressed.
4. Upon perusal of the explanation submitted by the Presiding Officer, this
Court finds that no clear-cut reply has been given, and the Presiding Officer has
taken an erroneous plea of the proviso to Section 144(3) of the BNSS
(corresponding to the proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.), though the law laid
down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court is otherwise.
5. This Court in Mohammad Usman Alias Bhai Lal Vs. State of U.P. and 6
Others, 2021 SCC OnLine All 640, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in Shanta Alias Ushadevi and another vs. B.G. Shivananjapp,
(2005) 4 SCC 468 has observed that it is unreasonable to insist on filing
successive applications. The relevant observation made in the judgment is
quoted herein below for ready reference :-
"15. In Shantha Alias Ushadevi And Another v. B. G.
Shivananjappa, (2005) 4 SCC 468, it was stated that Section 125 of
the Code is a measure of social legislation and accordingly, is to be
construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and the
children. In the context of the provisions contained under Section
125(3), first proviso, prescribing limitation of one year to seek
recovery of arrears of maintenance, it was observed that the
liability to pay the maintenance as per the orders passed under
Section 125(1) being a continuing liability, it was unreasonable to
insist on filing successive applications. The relevant observations
made in the judgement are as follows:-
"8. ... Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social
legislation and it has to be construed liberally for the
welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is
unreasonable to insist on filing successive
applications when the liability to pay the maintenance
as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a
continuing liability."
16. The provisions contained under Section 125(3) of the Code and
the first proviso thereto again came up for consideration in
Poongodi And Another v. Thangavel, (2013) 10 SCC 618, and it
was held that the first proviso to Section 125(3) does not create any
bar or fetter on claiming arrears of maintenance and it neither
extinguishes nor limits entitlement to arrears of maintenance. It
was stated thus:-

11
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
"4. A reading of the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by
the High Court would go to show that the proviso to
Section 125(3) CrPC has been construed by the High
Court to be a fetter on the entitlement of the claimants
to receive arrears of maintenance beyond a period of
one year preceding the date of filing of the application
under Section 125(3) CrPC. Having considered the
said provision of the Code we do not find that the
same creates a bar or in any way affects the
entitlement of a claimant to arrears of maintenance.
What the proviso contemplates is that the procedure
for recovery of maintenance under Section 125(3)
CrPC, namely, by construing the same to be a levy of
a fine and the detention of the defaulter in custody
would not be available to a claimant who had slept
over his/her rights and has not approached the Court
within a period of one year commencing from the date
on which the entitlement to receive maintenance has
accrued. However, in such a situation the ordinary
remedy to recover the amount of maintenance,
namely, a civil action would still be available."
32. Taking a similar view it was held in Mackinnon Mackenzie &
Co. Ltd vs Audrey D'Costa & Anr., (1987) 2 SCC 469, that the
proviso does not travel beyond the provision to which it is a
proviso and its ambit cannot be stretched beyond the main
provision.
8. The ambit and scope of the powers to be exercised under
Section 125(3) of the Code and the question as to whether the
limitation prescribed under proviso to Section 125(3) would be
applicable in respect of proceedings under Section 128 of the
Code, fall for consideration in the present case.
38. Applying the aforesaid principles of statutory construction, the
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 125 would have to be held to
be confined to the section which precedes it. The limitation of one
year provided in terms thereof would have to be read in relation to
issuance of a warrant for recovery of an amount due in terms of an
order of maintenance passed under sub-section (1) of Section 125.
The aforesaid limitation of one year under the proviso to Section
125 (3) cannot be held to travel beyond or stretch to an extent so as
to being within its ambit the powers relating to enforcement of an
order of maintenance under Section 128 of the Code.
39. It may, therefore, be deduced that the scope of Section 125(3)
and 128 of the Code being different and the first proviso to Section
125(3) creating an interdict only on issuance of warrant for
recovery under Section 125(3), the said period of limitation of one
year cannot be held to create a fetter on the right to claim
enforcement under Section 128.
40. The proceeding for enforcement of the order under Section
128, therefore, cannot be assailed on the ground that the same
would be barred by limitation as provided under the proviso to
Section 125(3) of the Code.
emphasis supplied”
6. In view of the aforesaid legal position, Sri Vimal Prakash Arya, Additional
Principal Judge, 1st Family Court, Jaunpur, is directed to submit a clear and
specific explanation addressing the issues raised by this Court in respect of
successive applications to execute the order of maintenance as continuous
liability.

12
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
7. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur, is also directed to submit a
report as to whether the order dated 13.04.2026 as well as notice has
been communicated to the Opposite Party No. 2 or not.”
5. Upon receiving explanation from the Presiding Officer, to the
effect that the maintenance order dated 04.03.2023 is still operative, this
Court passed the order dated 11.05.2026. The order dated 11.05.2026 is
delineated below:-
"1. In compliance of this Court's order dated 28.04.2026, the concerned
Presiding Officer has submitted an explanation mentioning therein that the
order of maintenance dated 04.03.2023 and the order dated 10.03.2025
passed in application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. are still effective. Paragraph
1 and 2 of the explanation are being quoted below :-
" 01. , 416/2018, , 125
यहकि जहाँतकवादसं० मालाकुमारीबनामआनन्दकुंवर अं०धारा
04.03.2023 ,
दं०प्र०सं०मेंपारितआदेशदिनांक कासम्बन्धहै इससम्बन्धमेंअधोहस्ताक्षरीका
-
निवेदननिम्नवत्है
(i).
यहकि उपरोक्तआदेशवर्तमानमेंप्रभावीहैऔरजबतक

सक्षमअधिकारितावालेन्यायालयद्वारानिरस्तनहींकरदियाजाता

तबतकउक्तआदेशसदैवप्रभावीरहेगा।
(ii). , 2023 146
यहकि भारतीयनागरिकसुरक्षासंहिता कीधारा
-
मेंवर्णितउपबंधोंकेसाबितहोनेपरभरण पोषणकाआदेशरद्दया

परिवर्तितहोसकताहै।
02. , 416/2018, , 125
यहकि वादसं० मालाकुमारीबनामआनन्दकुंवर अं०धारा
04.03.2023,
दं०प्र०सं०मेंपारितआदेशदिनांक अधोहस्ताक्षरीकेन्यायालयद्वारा
891/2023, , 128
वादसं० मालाकुमारीबनामआनन्दकुंवर अन्तर्गतधारा दंण्ड
10.03.2025
प्रक्रियासंहितामेंपारितआदेशदिनांक केअनुसारनिरस्तनहींहुआहै
04.03.2023 "
औरआदेशदिनांकित वर्तमानमेंभीप्रभावीहै।
2. Further, this Court vide order dated 13.04.2026 issued notice to O.P. No.2
through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur for filing counter affidavit as
well as vide order dated 28.04.2026, the concerned C.J.M. was directed to
submit report whether notice has been communicated to O.P. No.2 or not. As
per office report dated 07.05.2026, "Notice served upon O.P. No.2 as per C.J.M.
Ghazipur".
3. As a last opportunity, one week's further time is granted to O.P. No.2 for
filing counter affidavit, otherwise on the next date this case shall be heard on
merits as per the available record.
4. List this case on 18.05.2026 as fresh." 
6. As per the office report dated 07.05.2026, the notice has been
served upon the opposite party No.2 (husband) even then, after effective
service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to
press this case, therefore, this Court granted another opportunity vide

13
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
order dated 18.05.2026. The order dated 18.05.2026 is delineated
below:-
"As per the Office Report dated 07.05.2026, based on the report of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur, notice had already been served upon opposite
party no.2. Accordingly, this Court, vide order dated 11.05.2026, granted last
opportunity to opposite party no.2 to file counter affidavit. However, till date,
no counter affidavit has been filed.
Put up this case as fresh on 27.05.2026, peremptorily. " 
7. Despite the aforesaid orders of the Court, no one appeared to file
counter affidavit in the matter, therefore, this Court, on the basis of the
available record, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
revisionist as well as in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Courts, proceeds to pass the final order in the present matter.
8. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that, on 11.05.2018,
the revisionist (wife) filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,
seeking the grant of maintenance from opposite party No.2 (husband).
After providing an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, the
concerned Family Court vide order dated 04.03.2023, directed opposite
party No.2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to the revisionist from the
date of application i.e. 11.05.2018.
9. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, for
execution of the aforesaid maintenance order dated 04.03.2023, the
revisionist filed an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. on 13.04.2023,
which was registered as Execution Case No.891 of 2023 and the same
was finally adjudicated vide order dated 10.03.2025, observing that the
entire arrears of maintenance up to February, 2025 had been paid by
opposite party No.2, thereafter, the proceedings under Section 128
Cr.P.C. was disposed of.
For ready reference, the relevant operative portion of the order
dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Family Court on the first execution
application as well as provisions of Section 128 Cr.P.C. (corresponding
Section 147 B.N.S.S.) are delineated below respectively:-

14
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
"
पत्रावलीकेअवलोकनसेविदितहोतीहैकि सायलाद्वारायहवादविपक्षीकेविरुद्धअन्र्तगत
128
धारा दं०प्र०सं०प्रस्तुतकियागयाथा।जिसपरविपक्षीद्वारायहअभिकथनकियागयाथा

कि उसकेद्वाराआजतकसम्पूर्णधनराशि अदाकियाजाचुकाहै।अतःपूर्णसंतुष्टिमेंयहवाद

निर्णीतकियेजानेकीयाचनाकीगयीहै।जिसपरसायलाकीतरफसेअनापत्तिदर्जकीगयी

है।अतःयहवादपूर्णसंतुष्टिपरनिस्तारितकियेजानेयोग्यहै।
आदेश
891/2023 128
वादसं० मालाबनामआनन्दकुवरअन्तर्गतधारा दं०प्र०सं०उभयपक्षकीपूर्ण
"
सन्तुष्टिपरनिर्णीतकियाजाताहै।
xxxx
“Section128 Cr.P.C/147 BNSS. Enforcement of order of maintenance: A
copy of the order of [maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses
of proceeding, as the case may be,] shall be given without payment to
the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any, or to the
person to [whom the allowance for the maintenance or the allowance for
the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may
be,] is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in
any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such
Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non-
payment of the [allowance or as the case may be, expenses, due.]”
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, after
disposal of the earlier execution proceedings, the revisionist filed
another execution application in the next month on 09.04.2025, under
Section 128 Cr.P.C./147 B.N.S.S. seeking regular payment of
maintenance from April, 2025 onwards, as well as arrears of
maintenance for the month of March, 2025. The said application was
registered as Execution Case No.641 of 2025. He also submitted that the
said application was filed immediately after the disposal of the earlier
execution case in the same maintenance proceedings and there was no
delay on the part of the revisionist in approaching the concerned Family
Court for enforcement of the maintenance order dated 04.03.2023. The
relevant portion of second execution application dated 09.04.2025 is
delineated below:
“ 04.03.2023 5000/-
यहकि प्रार्थिनीकोमाननीयन्यायालयकेआदेशदिनांक केअनुक्रममें रुपये
- , 2025 -
माहवारभरण पोषणअनवरत्दियाजानाहै तथामाहमार्च काभरण पोषणकीधनराशि मु०
5000/- , 04.03.2023
रुपयेबकायाहै ऐसेमेंमाननीयन्यायालयकेआदेशदिनांक केअनुक्रममें
- 5000/-
विपक्षीकोप्रार्थिनीकेभरण पोषणकीधनराशि मु० रुपयाप्रतिमाहनियमितरुपसेदिये

जानेकाआदेशदियाजानाआवश्यकहै।

15
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
2025
अतःश्रीमान्‌जीसेप्रार्थनाहैकि विपक्षीसेमार्च कीबकायाधनराशि वआगेनियमितरूपसे
- 04.03.2023
भरण पोषणकीधनराशि माननीयन्यायालयकेआदेशदिनांक केअनुक्रममेंदिये
”
जानेकाआदेशदेनेकीकृपाकरे।
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that, on the
aforesaid execution application dated 09.04.2025, the Additional
Principal Judge-Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur vide order dated 29.10.2025
issued recovery warrant for eleven months’ arrears of maintenance
against opposite party No.2 in compliance with the maintenance order
dated 04.03.2023. He further submitted that thereafter, vide the order
dated 06.12.2025, the concerned Family Court withdrew the recovery
warrant merely on the ground that opposite party No.2 had deposited Rs.
5,000/- towards the arrears for the month of March 2025, but wrong
notion was mentioned in the said order about the arrears amounting to
Rs. 55,000/-, which were still due against him till the date of passing of
the recovery order, and thus, the cause of action is still continuing and
the maintenance order is still in operation. The relevant portion of
second execution order dated 06.12.2025 is being delineated below:
“ 3 147
पत्रावलीकेअवलोकनसेज्ञातहोताहैकि प्रार्थिनीकाप्रार्थनापत्र कअं०धारा बीएनएसएस
09.04.2025 2025 5000/-
दिनांक कोदाखिलकियाऔरमाहमार्च कीबकायाधनराशि मु० रू०
03 2025
दिलायेजानेकाअनुरोधकियाहैतथापैरा मेंयहकथनकियाहैकि माहफरवरी तक
10.03.2025
धनराशि अदाहोनेपरउसकावाददिनांक कोपूर्णसंतुष्टिपरनिस्तारितहोचुकाहै।
29.10.2025 11 ,
चूंकि दिनांक कोत्रुटिवश माहकीधनराशि वसूलीहेतुआदेशहुआहै आजदिनांक
06.12.2025 5000/-
कोविपक्षीद्वारामु० रू०जमाकरनेकीअनुमति चाहीगयीहै।ऐसीस्थि ति में
5000/-
विपक्षीकेविरूद्धअन्यकोईधनराशि वसूलीहेतुशेषनहींहै।अतःविपक्षीकोमु० रू०
, ,
माननीयप्रधानन्यायाधीश परिवारन्यायालय जौनपुरकेखातेमेंजमाकरनेकीअनुमति प्रदानकी
5000/-
जातीहै।विपक्षीद्वाराजमाकीगयीधनराशि कीरसीददाखिलनकरनेपरमु० रू०कीवसूली
, 5000/-
हेतु वसूलीवारंटजारीहोऔरयदिविपक्षीद्वारा रू०कीधनराशि जमाकरदीजातीहैतो
,
विपक्षीकेविरूद्धयदि कोईवारंटजारीहो तोथानेसेअदमतामीलवापसमंगायाजाये।लिपिक
(27.01.2026) ”
अनुपालनकरे।पत्रावलीनियतदिनांक कोवास्तेअग्रिमआदेशपेशहो।
12. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that,
thereafter, vide the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, the Additional
Principal Judge-Ist, Family Court, Jaunpur rejected the application dated
09.04.2025 taking recourse to the proviso to Section 144(3) B.N.S.S./
Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., mentioning therein that opposite party No.2 had
deposited Rs. 5,000/- in the account of the Principal Judge, Family

16
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
Court, Jaunpur and accordingly, the second application of execution was
rejected and the case filed was also consigned to the record room. He
further submitted that, by passing the aforesaid order, the concerned
Family Court practically nullified the effect of maintenance order dated
04.03.2023, despite the fact that the said order was still in existence and
had never been recalled or set aside by any competent court and having
continuous effect under Section 144(3) BNSS/Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. He
further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provision of
Section 144(3) BNSS/125(3) Cr.P.C.
For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order dated
(corresponding
27.01.2026 as well as provisions of Section 144(3) B.N.S.S.
Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. )
are delineated below respectively:-
“ 06.12.2025
पत्रावलीकेअवलोकनसेज्ञातहोताहैकि दिनांक कोविपक्षीआनन्दकुंवरद्वारा
19 06.12.2025 5000/-
कागजसं० खपरआदेशदिनांक केअनुपालनमें रू०माननीयप्रधान

न्यायाधीशपरिवारन्यायालयजौनपुरकेखातेमेंजमाकररसीदपत्रावलीपरदाखिलकीगयीहै।

इसप्रकारप्रार्थिनीप्रार्थनापत्रमेंवर्णितधनराशि प्राप्तकरचुकीहै।अतःप्रार्थिनीकाप्रार्थनापत्रपूर्ण

संतुष्टिमेंखारिजकियेजानेयोग्यहै।
आदेश
3 , 147 , 5000/-
प्रार्थिनीमालाकुमारीकाप्रार्थनापत्र क अं०धारा बीएनएसएस मु० रू०प्राप्तकरने

केकारणपूर्णसंतुष्टिमेंखारिजकियाजाताहै।पत्रावलीनियमानुसारदाखिलदफ्तरहो।लिपिक
"
अनुपालनकरे।
xxxxx
“Section 144(3) BNSS/125(3) Cr.P.C- If any person so ordered fails
without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate
may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the
amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence
such person, for the whole or any part of each month's [allowance for the
maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as
the case may be,] remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until
payment if sooner made :
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount
due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy
such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it
became due:
Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on
condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such
Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may

17
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is
satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.”
13. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that proviso
to Section 144(3) B.N.S.S./ Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. only restricts the
issuance of a warrant for recovery after the prescribed limitation period
has elapsed; it does not extinguish the right of the wife to claim due
maintenance, nor does it bar the enforcement mechanism available under
Section 128 Cr.P.C./ Section 147 B.N.S.S. He further submitted that the
revisionist approached the court promptly, and the provisions of law had
been wrongly interpreted while rejecting the application filed by the
revisionist. In support of his submissions, he relied upon paragraph No.
4 of the judgment in Poongodi And Another v. Thangavel, (2013) 10
SCC 618 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant paragraph
of the judgment is delineated below:-
"4. A reading of the order dated 21.4.2004 passed by the High Court would go to
show that the proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC has been construed by the High
Court to be a fetter on the entitlement of the claimants to receive arrears of
maintenance beyond a period of one year preceding the date of filing of the
application under Section 125(3) CrPC. Having considered the said provision of
the Code we do not find that the same creates a bar or in any way affects the
entitlement of a claimant to arrears of maintenance. What the proviso
contemplates is that the procedure for recovery of maintenance under Section
125(3) CrPC, namely, by construing the same to be a levy of a fine and the
detention of the defaulter in custody would not be available to a claimant who
had slept over his/her rights and has not approached the Court within a period of
one year commencing from the date on which the entitlement to receive
maintenance has accrued. However, in such a situation the ordinary remedy to
recover the amount of maintenance, namely, a civil action would still be
available."
(emphasis added)
14. Shri Mayank Awasthi, learned State Counsel assisted the Court
and submitted that the maintenance order dated 04.03.2023, passed in
favour of the revisionist, is still operative and so long as it stands,
opposite party No.2 is under a continuous legal obligation to pay the
monthly maintenance amount to the revisionist.
15. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the revisionist, as well as learned State Counsel and, has also
perused the record.

18
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
16. From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the maintenance
order dated 04.03.2023, passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remains
operative, for the enforcement of which, the revisionist had earlier
instituted proceedings under Section 128 Cr.P.C. that were finally
decided vide the order dated 10.03.2025 upon payment of the
maintenance arrears. Subsequently, the revisionist moved another
execution application dated 09.04.2025 under Section 128 Cr.P.C./
Section 147 B.N.S.S. seeking payment of maintenance for the month of
March 2025, as well as future maintenance.
17. Vide the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, the learned Additional
Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Jaunpur, recorded a finding that since
the maintenance amount for March, 2025 had already been deposited by
opposite party No.2 (husband), no outstanding amount remained due in
respect thereof. Furthermore, regarding the prayer for future
maintenance, the Family Court, while passing the impugned order,
observed that a recovery warrant cannot be issued for future monthly
maintenance amounts that have not yet become due on the date of filing
of the application and has taken note of the provisions contained in
Section 144(3) B.N.S.S./Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. but the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and High Court have observed in several judgments that
successive execution applications are not required to be filed. This issue
has also been considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in
Mohammad Usman Alias Bhai Lal Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others, 2021
SCC OnLine All 640. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Shantha Alias Ushadevi and another Vs. B.G. Shivananjappa; (2005) 4
SCC 468, has also observed that it would be unreasonable to insist upon
the filing of successive applications. The relevant observations made in
Shantha Alias Ushadevi (supra) are delineated below for ready
reference:-
"8. We are, therefore, of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of the case,
the bar under Section 125(3) cannot be applied and the High Court has erred in
reversing the order of Sessions Judge. It must be borne in mind that Section 125
Criminal Procedure Code is a measure of social legislation and it has to be
construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and daughter. It is
unreasonable to insist on filing successive applications when the liability to pay

19
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
the maintenance as per the order passed under Section 125(1) is a continuing
liability.”
(emphasis added)
18. The provisions of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. and its first proviso have
also been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Poongodi And Another v. Thangavel, (2013) 10 SCC 618, wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the first proviso to Section 125(3)
Cr.P.C. does not prevent a person entitled to maintenance from claiming
arrears of maintenance for a period beyond one year. The period of one
year provided in the first proviso only limits the procedure for the
recovery of maintenance under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. by the issuance of
a warrant for the recovery of the amount, and the detention of the
defaulter in custody does not extinguish the right of the claimant to
recover the arrears of maintenance.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aarti Rai vs. Satish Rai
and others arising out of Criminal Appeal No.1074 of 2025 vide order
dated 04.03.2025 has directed the counsel for the appellant to supply the
account details of the appellant-wife to the respondent so that the amount
of maintenance can be directly deposited in the bank account of the
appellant. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is delineated
below:-
“The learned counsel appearing for the appellant shall supply account
details of the appellant to the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondnet so that the amount of maintenance can be directly deposited in
the bank accound of the appellant.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dimpal Vs. Nishant
Pravinbhai Soni arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 3147 of
2024, vide order dated 27.02.2026, has also directed the employer of
respondent-husband to deduct the amount of maintenance from the
salary of the respondent-husband and the same shall be transferred in the
bank account of the applicant-wife. The relevant observations made in
paragraph No.7 of Dimpal (supra) are quoted hereinbelow for ready
reference:-

20
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
“7. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option but to direct
the employer of the respondent-husband, namely, Rishad Shipping and
Clearing Agency Pvt. Ltd., referred to above, that an amount of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) shall be deducted per
month from the salary of Nishant Praveenbhai Soni and the said amount
shall be transferred by RTGS to the account of his wife, namely, Dimpal
Soni.”
(emphasis added)
21. In the present case, it cannot be ignored that 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.
22. Accordingly, opposite party No.2-husband is directed to clear the
arrears of maintenance, if any, till today and shall continue to pay the
monthly maintenance amount to the revisionist-wife in compliance with
the order dated 04.03.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge
Family Court-I, Jaunpur in case no. 416 of 2018 (Mala Kumari Vs.
Anand Kunwar) under section 125 Cr.P.C., preferably into her verified
bank account, if provided by the Revisionist-Wife of opposite party
No.2(Husband).
23. All the Presiding Officers of the Family Courts and Gram
Nyayalayas of the State of U.P. are directed to ensure strict compliance
with the following directions:
(i) The trial court shall follow the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanta Alias Ushadevi (supra) to
the effect that successive execution applications are not
required to be filed for receiving monthly maintenance.
(ii) The trial court shall also follow the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Poongodi (supra) to the effect,
that the first proviso to Section 125(3) Cr.P.C./Section
144(3) B.N.S.S. does not create any bar or affect upon the

21
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
entitlement of a claimants to recover arrears of maintenance
beyond a period of one year.
(iii) While passing or executing maintenance orders, the trial
court shall direct the opposite party/person, liable to pay
maintenance, to deposit the monthly maintenance amount
directly into the verified bank account of the applicant-
claimant, in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Aarti Rai (supra).
(iv) Wherever the opposite party is in salaried employment,
the trial court shall also direct the concerned
department/employer to deduct the maintenance or arrears
from the salary/remuneration/honorarium of the opposite
party-employee and transfer the same directly into the
verified bank account of the applicant-claimant, in
accordance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Dimple (supra).
(v) In the event of refusal of payment of maintenance or
non-payment of maintenance due to insufficiency of funds,
the trial court shall recover the amount by attaching the
property of the opposite party/person, liable to pay
maintenance, in accordance with law and if the attached
property is insufficient to clear the unpaid arrears of
maintenance, an order of simple imprisonment may be
directed to be executed for a term which may extend to one
month for each month's default or until payment, if sooner
made, as per Section 125(3) Cr.P.C./Section 144(3) B.N.S.S.;
and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Rajnesh vs. Neha; (2021) 2 SCC 324.
24. The above directions, as given by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well
as this Court, if not complied with in letter and spirit by the Presiding
Officers of the Family Courts, as well as the Gram Nyayalayas of the

22
CRLR No. - 1552 of 2026
State of U.P., the same is liable to attract disciplinary, as well as
contempt proceedings as per law.
25. For execution of the maintenance order, the District
Administration as well as the Police Authorities are directed to cooperate
in the matter and this issue shall also be discussed in the Monitoring Cell
meetings conducted by all the District and Sessions Judges of the State
of U.P.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the revision stands disposed of.
27. The Registrar (Compliance) is directed to communicate this order
to the District and Session Judge, Jaunpur and the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Jaunpur for its compliance as well as to transmit a copy of
this order to the Judicial Training and Research Institute, U.P. Lucknow
(JTRI), for the academic purposes of the judicial officers.
(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
July 24, 2026
K.Tiwari
Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KANT TIWARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad