Allahabad High Court: maintenance orders must actually be enforced, not just passed

Disposing of an application under Section 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking early disposal of a four-year-old execution case, the Allahabad High Court (Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari) issued detailed directions to enforce maintenance orders passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 144 BNSS). The applicant, awarded Rs. 3,000 a month in 2021 after being thrown out of her matrimonial home, had been unable to recover even this amount despite starting execution proceedings under Section 128 CrPC (now Section 147 BNSS) in 2021, which remained pending for over four years due to repeated adjournments. The Court held that timely enforcement is essential for a maintenance claimant's survival, since delay turns a maintenance order into a mere 'paper decree' and defeats the purpose of the law — 'justice delayed is justice denied'.

Reaffirming its 2022 circular setting up a district-level Monitoring Cell (comprising the Family Court's Principal Judge, the District Magistrate, the SP/SSP and the Chief Medical Officer) to bridge the gap between judicial orders and execution, the Court issued twelve directions, including maintaining a digital register of pending execution petitions, enforcing the filing of an affidavit of assets under Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, designating a nodal officer for serving process, and disposing of execution petitions within six months. The Court directed its order circulated to all Family Courts, District Magistrates, police chiefs and Chief Medical Officers across Uttar Pradesh for compliance.