Cheque payments alone do not establish discharge of maintenance arrears without cogent evidence of their purpose.

The revisionist obtained an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the respondent to pay maintenance of ₹6,000 per month from the date of her application.

She later sought recovery under Section 128 Cr.P.C. of ₹9,54,000 in arrears for the period from 3 November 2009 to 3 January 2023.

The respondent claimed that ₹9,50,000 paid by cheque had been paid towards those arrears.

The Magistrate rejected that objection, finding insufficient evidence to establish the purpose of the payments; the Sessions Judge dismissed the respondent’s revision and affirmed that order.

The Family Court subsequently dismissed the revisionist’s application, reasoning that the cheque payments were towards maintenance arrears. The revisionist challenged that decision.

Whether the Family Court could find, on the same issue and without fresh evidence, that the ₹9,50,000 in cheque payments discharged maintenance arrears, despite the earlier affirmed finding that the respondent had not proved that purpose.

Whether the Family Court’s order dismissing the Section 128 Cr.P.C. application should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration.

Section 125 Cr.P.C. was the basis of the maintenance order, while Section 128 Cr.P.C. provided the procedural basis for seeking enforcement of that order.

A claimed payment or discharge of maintenance liability must be supported by cogent material establishing the purpose and nature of the payment; the fact that payment was made by cheque, by itself, does not prove that it was towards maintenance arrears.

The judgment cites no separate precedent.

The Magistrate had specifically considered and rejected the respondent’s claim that the cheque payments were made towards maintenance arrears, and that finding was affirmed in revision.

In the absence of fresh evidence or material, the Family Court could not reach a contrary conclusion merely by inferring the payments’ purpose from their having been made by cheque. Its finding therefore lacked cogent evidentiary support and warranted interference.

It remitted the Section 128 Cr.P.C. application for fresh consideration, directed that both parties be heard, and requested disposal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months of production of a certified copy of the order.