UP trial courts directed to decide maintenance execution applications within six months, with non-compliance risking contempt

The Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, allowed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 17 September 2024, directing the revisionist to pay maintenance of ₹3,000 per month to the opposite party and ₹1,000 per month each to two minor children, from the date of the application.

The revisionist challenged that order by filing a criminal revision with a delay-condonation application, 645 days after the order.

He argued that the maintenance amount was beyond his means and that the delay was explained in his supporting affidavit.

When asked whether execution proceedings had been initiated, counsel could not say; no document concerning execution was attached to the paper book.

Whether the revisionist showed sufficient grounds to condone the 645-day delay in filing the criminal revision

Whether the Court should issue or reiterate directions for timely disposal of execution applications in maintenance cases, in light of the Supreme Court’s directions

A delay-condonation application may be allowed where the reasons advanced adequately explain the delay; here, the Court assessed the supporting affidavit and found the explanation insufficient.

Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Family Court had ordered maintenance; Sections 125(3) and 128 Cr.P.C. were mentioned in connection with possible execution proceedings, but the Court did not decide any question concerning their application.

In Periyammal (Dead) v. V. Rajamani, (2025) 9 SCC 568, the Supreme Court reiterated the direction that execution proceedings be completed within six months and directed High Courts to ensure compliance through their respective district judiciaries.

The Allahabad High Court’s Registrar General had circulated that direction to courts in Uttar Pradesh by Circular No. 16/Admin G-II dated 24 May 2025.

The Court found that the revision had been filed 645 days after the maintenance order and that the affidavit did not sufficiently explain the delay.

The asserted challenge to the amount of maintenance did not overcome that deficiency, so the Court declined to condone the delay.

Separately, because counsel could not confirm whether execution had been initiated and the record contained no related documents, the Court reiterated the Supreme Court’s six-month disposal direction and directed trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to comply in maintenance cases.

It directed trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure that execution applications in maintenance cases are decided within six months, and directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, for necessary action.