Court directs all Uttar Pradesh trial courts to dispose execution applications in maintenance cases within six months, reiterating Supreme Court's mandate to prevent prolonged delays.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by Data Ram challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The revision was filed after a delay of 645 days, which the Court found inordinate and unjustified, leading to the refusal of the delay condonation application.
The case arose from a maintenance order dated September 17, 2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, directing Data Ram to pay Rs. 3,000 per month to his wife and Rs. 1,000 each to their two minor children. Data Ram sought to challenge the order on the ground that the maintenance amount was not commensurate with his income. However, he approached the High Court nearly two years later without sufficient explanation for the delay.
Upon scrutiny, the Court noted the absence of any material indicating whether execution proceedings of the maintenance order had been initiated or were pending. When questioned, the counsel for Data Ram could not confirm the status of execution applications under Section 125(3) or Section 128 Cr.P.C.
The Court emphasized the Supreme Court's binding precedent in Periyammal (Dead) v. V. Rajamani (2025) 9 SCC 568, which mandates that execution petitions in maintenance cases must be decided and disposed of within six months to prevent undue hardship to the beneficiaries. Reiterating this, the Allahabad High Court referred to the circular dated May 24, 2025, issued by its Registrar General directing all District and Sessions Judges, Family Courts, and other trial courts across Uttar Pradesh to comply with this timeline rigorously. The Court warned that non-compliance could amount to contempt of both the Supreme Court and the High Court.
The judgment further underscored the principle that mere filing of an affidavit explaining delay is insufficient. Where the delay is as long as 645 days and no sufficient cause is demonstrated, the High Court will not condone the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition as barred by limitation.
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to inform the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, to take necessary steps in line with this order.
This ruling sends a clear message about the importance of prompt action in maintenance matters and strict adherence to procedural timelines to safeguard the rights of women and children entitled to maintenance.
Bottom Line:
Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Criminal revision against maintenance order filed after inordinate delay of 645 days - Delay not condoned when reasons given in affidavit found insufficient - Consequently revision dismissed as barred by limitation - High Court further directed all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure disposal of execution applications in maintenance cases within six months in terms of Supreme Court directions in Periyammal and circular of Registrar General.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 125 Cr.P.C., Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., Section 128 Cr.P.C.
Data Ram v. State of U.P., (All) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2996995
