Allahabad High Court : Court Cannot Afford To Be Perceived As Complicit | Dismisses Challenge To Interim Maintenance | Mandates Compliance With Section 125 CrPC Guidelines
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Single Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, has dismissed a challenge to an interim maintenance order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court directed all Family Courts across Uttar Pradesh to strictly implement the guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, particularly regarding the filing of asset-liability affidavits and timely adjudication. The Court also mandated court-wise, seriatim compliance reports and warned against repeated judicial indifference. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed.
The revisionist-husband filed a criminal revision against the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, in a case under Section 125 CrPC. The principal allegation concerned non-compliance with procedural mandates established in Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi [2023 SCC OnLine All 2684]. Specifically, the revisionist argued that the Family Court failed to direct the parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities, thus contravening prescribed judicial norms.
The revisionist's counsel argued that such omission constituted a violation of mandatory procedure, thereby rendering the proceedings legally unsustainable. They submitted that both parties were expected to file their respective affidavits in line with the Supreme Court judgment, which was not adhered to.
The learned AGA submitted that the Principal Judge of the Family Court had committed contempt of court by disregarding the directives of the Supreme Court and High Court. It was further submitted that both judgments had been widely circulated among all Family Courts within Uttar Pradesh, and such non-compliance undermined judicial propriety and the rule of law.
In support of enforcement, the High Court referred to a letter dated 10.11.2023 from the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court, pursuant to a direction dated 06.11.2023 in Aditi @ Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma, which directed re-circulation of Rajnesh v. Neha guidelines to all judicial bodies. Consequently, the High Court issued a circular under Rule 4(C)(10) of Chapter III of the Rules of the Court, 1952, requiring all Family Courts to implement the judgments in question.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Auraiya, was directed to submit an explanation for non-compliance along with copies of the last 25 judgments / orders passed in the application under Section 125 CrPC. Upon review, the High Court found those judgments satisfactory and noted an improved sense of judicial propriety.
Nevertheless, the High Court observed widespread non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions across multiple Family Courts despite extensive training and sensitization efforts by the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow.
To address this, all Principal Judges of Family Courts in Uttar Pradesh were directed to file compliance reports, including a court-wise, seriatim tabular representation of all pending Section 125 CrPC cases.
On 23.05.2024, only 48 out of 74 Family Courts had submitted reports. However, the compliance was found lacking in spirit and format. A renewed directive dated 10.06.2024 was issued to ensure compliance, specifically referencing paragraphs 87–90 of Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi. Still, a number of courts failed to comply adequately.
Empirical data showed that in districts like Agra, Aligarh, and Maharajganj, over 1,000 cases filed uder section 125 CrPC were pending. Notably, many were filed as early as 2013 or earlier. For example, in Agra, 1,433 cases were pending, but only 84 had interim maintenance awarded and only one had been finally disposed of.
The report further indicated systemic issues such as frequent adjournments (70 to 90 times), poor enforcement of affidavits, and lack of accountability. Certain courts, such as Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-4, Lucknow, showed full disposal of all 499 cases with 318 interim orders issued—an exception rather than the norm.
The court noted that some judges continued to neglect mandates for timely interim relief. Despite being summary proceedings, cases saw excessive delays without substantive adjudication.
In Amroha, out of 937 cases filed between 2018 and 2024, there was neither an interim order nor final adjudication. In contrast, Lucknow’s Family Court No. 4 reported all cases decided.
The Court found widespread failure to obtain affidavits of income and liabilities from parties, a basic procedural step mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha. Furthermore, it noted a pro-bar judicial culture marked by routine adjournments, lack of enforcement, and non-cooperation by parties—without consequence.
The Court invoked Article 141 of the Constitution, which renders Supreme Court judgments binding across the territory of India. It observed that defiance by subordinate courts amounted not merely to error but to a violation of constitutional norms.
It was also noted that the Family Courts Act, 1984, intended for speedy redressal of matrimonial and maintenance issues, was being rendered ineffective due to infrastructural and procedural failures.
The Court recorded that “the Judiciary cannot afford to be perceived as complicit—whether through inaction or apathy—in the erosion of justice.” It further stated:
“Despite issuing numerous orders to the learned Principal Judges of Family Courts individually, widely circulating the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and conducting training programs by JTRI in Lucknow, as well as seminars on Family Court Sensitisation by the Sensitisation of Family Courts Committee, this Court has observed minimal impact in practice.”
The Court stated: “Even the basic requirement of directing the parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities has not been complied with in the vast majority of cases.”
On the prolonged delays in adjudicating interim maintenance applications, the Court recorded: “Interim maintenance—which, ideally, ought to be awarded to a destitute wife shortly after the institution of proceedings—has not been granted even after a lapse of 5 to 6 years.”
The Court observed: “The Judiciary must not only speak with moral authority—it must act with institutional resolve.”
On constitutional responsibility, the Court cited: “Judicial directions are not advisory in nature; they are binding commands that must be followed by all concerned.”
Regarding systemic failures, the Court recorded: “The next generation will not judge us by how eloquently we wrote judgments... They will judge us by whether we delivered justice where it mattered most.”
Finally, the Court held that: “Non-compliance with directions issued by Constitutional Courts is not merely an administrative oversight—it constitutes judicial abdication.”
The Court directed that the Registrar General place a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court for necessary cognizance of the issues raised. The Registrar General was also instructed to circulate the order among all Principal Judges of Family Courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure strict compliance with Supreme Court directions.
It was specifically directed that the reports from Family Courts be submitted in a court-wise format, listing cases in seriatim from the oldest to the latest. The reports must include specific details: date of filing, number of listings, date of interim and final maintenance orders (if any), and current status.
The Court also made it clear that the learned Principal Judges of the Family Courts who have not complied with earlier orders must now introspect and fulfil their assigned responsibilities in adherence to constitutional and judicial mandates.
As for the case at hand, the Court recorded that both parties have failed to file the mandatory affidavits despite due notice and that the impugned order did not warrant interference since the revisionist-husband was employed as a senior official at GAIL India Limited. The Court directed the husband to pay the maintenance and noted that in the event of failure, recovery shall be effected in terms with the directions laid down in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P & Others.
The revision was accordingly dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Arvind Kumar Pandey, Beerendra Singh Pal, Giri Ram Rawat, Rajesh Kumar, Sunil Kumar
For the Respondents: G.A., Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Sudhir Mehrotra
Case Title: Nirmal Kumar Fukan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:82897
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 4171 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar
[Read/Download order]
