Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar held that the proper remedy for recovery of maintenance directed in a criminal revision petition is to execute the order before the Magistrate and not to invoke the High Court’s contempt jurisdiction. The Court dismissed a contempt case filed by a wife against her husband for failing to comply with the High Court’s earlier direction modifying the Sessions Court’s order enhancing the maintenance granted by the Magistrate. It stated that non-payment of maintenance does not attract contempt proceedings when a specific execution procedure is prescribed under law.

The matter arose from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated by the wife before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanassery. She sought monetary relief and residence orders under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. The Magistrate directed the husband to pay a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 3,000. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, enhanced the monthly maintenance to Rs. 7,500 and granted a residence order in her favour.

Also Read: Supreme Court Acquits Four in 1990 Murder Case, Citing Prosecution’s Suppression of Origin and Genesis of Offence

The husband challenged the enhancement before the High Court through a criminal revision petition. The High Court modified the Sessions Court’s order, directing payment of Rs. 3,000 per month as rent for alternative accommodation from the date the wife vacated the shared household and Rs. 4,000 per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the original petition.

Subsequently, the wife filed a contempt petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging willful disobedience of the High Court’s order. She contended that the husband had failed to comply with the payment directions for several months. The husband, through counsel, argued that the petitioner had an alternative legal remedy to enforce the order through execution proceedings before the Magistrate as provided under the Domestic Violence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The statutory provisions cited during the proceedings included Sections 20(6) and 28(1) of the Domestic Violence Act and relevant case law concerning the scope of contempt jurisdiction and execution of maintenance orders

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed that “the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for.” The Court noted that contempt proceedings are intended to preserve “the court’s dignity and majesty of law,” and cannot be invoked as a substitute for statutory execution mechanisms.

Referring to the decision in Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar, the Court recorded that “for holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the court.” It further observed that “since notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order has been made out.”

Relying on the ruling in Itwar Singh v. Ganeshram, the Court stated that “the contempt jurisdiction is not substitute of the execution proceeding and remedy of the decree holder of injunction decree is to levy execution for injunction decree as he has the effective alternative remedy in law.”

Referring to Section 20(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Court cited that the Magistrate may “direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent to directly pay to the aggrieved person… which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.” It recorded that the Act itself provides an execution mechanism, and therefore, the petitioner’s recourse lies before the Magistrate rather than through contempt proceedings before the High Court

Also Read: Kerala High Court: Ad-Hoc State Bar Council Empowered Only to Complete Verification Process; Bar Council of India’s Review Petition Dismissed

The judgment stated, “Since the petitioner herein has approached this Court directly by filing a contempt petition without resorting to any of the above remedies, this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed.”

“In the result, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court, for the execution of the order in her favour.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Shri. Luke J. Chirayil, Shri. Navaneeth Krishnan P.K., Shri. Jacob Victor, Smt. Neha Ramakrishnan, Shri. Vysakh C.S., and Shri. Zainudheen P.
For the Respondent: Shri. P.T. Dinesh

Case Title: Mini K. U. v. Jacob Mathew
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:76243
Case Number: Con. Case (C) No. 2417 of 2025
Bench: Justice C. Pratheep Kumar