Absconding husband’s unknown whereabouts cannot end maintenance recovery proceedings, Delhi High Court rules; orders police-assisted tracing

The petitioners challenged the dismissal, for non-prosecution, of Ex. CRL No. 226/2023, an execution proceeding for maintenance, after they could not provide the judgment debtor’s current address or whereabouts.

The petitioners relied on a Family Court order awarding interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month to each petitioner from 26 November 2019, together with litigation expenses; they also referred to an order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

They sought restoration of the execution and steps to trace the judgment debtor.

Whether an execution proceeding for maintenance may be dismissed or closed because the judgment debtor is untraceable and the decree holder cannot provide a current address.

Whether the executing court must take available measures, including police assistance and enquiries into the judgment debtor’s residence, employment and assets, to facilitate enforcement.

Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided the basis for the petition.

The Court relied on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, for the principles that maintenance orders must be effectively enforced and may be executed under the applicable statutory provisions or as money decrees under Sections 51, 55, 58 and 60 read with Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It relied on Kuldip Kaur v. Surinder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 405, for the rule that coercive measures are modes of enforcement, whereas the maintenance liability is discharged only by actual payment.

It relied on Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, (2021) 6 SCC 418, for directions concerning timely execution and police assistance where necessary.

The Court also applied the continuing-liability principle recognised in Shantha @ Ushadevi v. B.G. Shivananjappa, (2005) 4 SCC 468, and Poongodi v. Thangavel, (2013) 10 SCC 618, and the rule against allowing a person to benefit from their own wrong, as stated in Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), (1996) 4 SCC 127.

The Court referred to enforcement under Section 20(6) of the DV Act and Section 125(3) read with Section 128 of the CrPC, noting the corresponding BNSS provisions as Sections 144(3) and 147.

The Court reasoned that the judgment debtor’s alleged evasion could not convert the petitioners’ inability to provide a current address into a ground for terminating execution: that would allow the debtor to benefit from the difficulty his own conduct created.

Because maintenance liability continues until actual payment, dismissing the execution without exhausting available enforcement processes would leave the award unsatisfied and undermine its purpose.

The executing court was therefore required to consider lawful means of tracing and serving the debtor, including police assistance and enquiries into residence, employment and assets, rather than confining itself to the address supplied by the decree holders.

It set aside the order dated 5 February 2026 and restored Ex. CRL No. 226/2023 to its original number and position. The Family Court was directed to take effective steps to trace and serve the judgment debtor, including seeking appropriate police assistance from the SHO, PS Shakarpur, who was directed to file a status report, and to enquire into the debtor’s residence, employment and assets.

The petition was allowed and the pending application disposed of.