Kiran Raj

The Allahabad High Court has directed an Additional District Judge in Uttar Pradesh to pay enhanced maintenance to his estranged wife, raising the monthly amount from ₹20,000 to ₹30,000. The court further ruled that arrears must be paid from the date of the initial maintenance application filed in 2014. Observing that the judicial officer had repeatedly delayed proceedings and failed to comply with earlier court orders, the High Court ordered the deduction of maintenance directly from his salary. The Family Court was instructed to calculate the outstanding arrears within three weeks, which must be cleared within six months. The court recorded that "the deliberate prolonging of litigation by the respondent-husband has caused undue hardship to the petitioner, necessitating a strict enforcement mechanism for maintenance payment."

The petitioner, Shabana Bano, filed a criminal revision petition before the Allahabad High Court, challenging the maintenance awarded to her by the Family Court in proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). She sought an enhancement of maintenance and a directive for the respondent-husband, Ali Raza, to clear arrears dating back to the year 2014. The respondent-husband currently holds the position of a Special Judge in the Uttar Pradesh judiciary.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place in 2002, and they have four children. The petitioner alleged that she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by the respondent-husband and was eventually thrown out from her matrimonial home in 2013. She claimed that the respondent unilaterally issued a Talaqnama in December 2013 along with a copy of Mufti's decision in this regard by post and subsequently remarried a lady who was 22 years younger to him, without her consent.

After being ousted from the matrimonial home, the petitioner initiated multiple legal proceedings, including a criminal complaint under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking maintenance, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 21 of 2014 before the Family Court.

The Family Court dismissed the petitioner’s maintenance application in 2017 due to her absence on multiple hearing dates. Even the application for restoration of the maintainence application was also dismissed. Subsequently, she filed a fresh maintenance application, Misc. Case No. 387 of 2019, which was also dismissed byt he Family Court on the ground of res judicata. On a challenge before the High Court, the maintainence petition was restored with directions to decide it on its merits.

On October 3, 2023, despite several notice to the respondent he failed to appear and on his non-appearance, the Family Court awarded the petitioner ₹20,000 per month in maintenance, effective from the date of filing of the second application in 2019. Dissatisfied with the quantum of maintenance and the limitation on arrears, the petitioner approached the High Court, seeking an increase in the awarded amount and a retrospective application from 2014.

Justice Vinod Diwakar examined the conduct of the respondent-husband during the proceedings before the Family Court and observed that he had repeatedly failed to appear despite being issued notices. The court noted that "the respondent-husband, despite being well-versed in legal procedures, deliberately prolonged the litigation, forcing the revisionist-wife to endure financial and emotional hardship for over a decade."

The court addressed the issue of maintenance arrears, stating that the Family Court had erred in granting maintenance only from the date of the second application in 2019. The judgment recorded that "the objectives enshrined under Article 19 and Section 125 Cr.P.C., as well as the directives of the constitutional courts, would be fulfilled by awarding maintenance from the date of filing of Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 2014." The court noted that maintenance should generally be granted from the date of the initial filing unless special circumstances dictate otherwise.

The High Court also took note of the respondent’s position as a judicial officer and addressed the Family Court’s calculation of maintenance. It observed that "the learned Family Judge erroneously assessed the salary of the respondent-husband at the entry-level judicial pay scale, despite clear evidence that he held a senior judicial position." The court found that his actual income was significantly higher than what was considered while determining the maintenance amount.

Discussing the legal principles governing maintenance, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, which laid down guidelines for determining the quantum of maintenance. The court recorded that "maintenance is not merely a statutory right but an essential component of the right to life, ensuring the financial security and dignity of an abandoned spouse." It further observed that the petitioner had been deprived of her rightful support for an extended period and that the delay in deciding the matter had exacerbated her financial difficulties.

The court also examined the respondent-husband’s history of non-compliance with maintenance orders and stated that "given the consistent failure of the respondent-husband to fulfill his legal obligations, this court deems it appropriate to direct the deduction of maintenance from his salary account." The judgment acknowledged that the petitioner had struggled to receive timely financial support and that direct salary deductions were necessary to enforce compliance.

Justice Diwakar allowed the petitioner’s criminal revision petition and modified the Family Court’s order. The maintenance amount was increased from ₹20,000 to ₹30,000 per month, effective from the date of the second maintenance application in 2019. Additionally, it ruled that the respondent-husband must pay arrears of ₹20,000 per month for the period from 2014 to 2019.

The court directed that the maintenance amount be directly deducted from the respondent’s salary and credited to the petitioner’s bank account. It further ordered the Family Court to calculate the total arrears within three weeks and ensure full payment within six months. The respondent-husband was granted the option to seek installment payments, subject to the Family Court’s discretion.

In addition to maintenance arrears, the court ordered the respondent-husband to pay ₹50,000 towards litigation costs incurred by the petitioner. It further directed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward a copy of the order to the Family Court and the District Treasury Officer to ensure compliance. The judgment recorded that "any further default in payment shall be viewed seriously and may warrant additional legal action."

Case Title: Shabana Bano v. State of U.P. & Another
Neutral Citation No: 2024: AHC:195765 
Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar

[Read/Download order]