Section 12, DV Act: Allahabad High Court Flags ‘Systemic Failure’ in Maintenance Enforcement

The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar, hearing a petition filed by Smt. Roshni Verma under Article 227 of the Constitution, expressed strong displeasure at the courts below's handling of the matter, terming their conduct a reflection of “systemic failure” and “indifference” to binding judicial precedents.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking expeditious disposal of her case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi. She had alleged that despite a court order for interim maintenance, she had not received a single rupee from her husband.

The record showed that the complaint was filed in November 2018 and the respondent-husband was served notice in May 2019. However, he failed to appear, prompting the trial court to proceed ex-parte. It was only in January 2021, after over two years, that he entered appearance.

Subsequently, on September 7, 2021, the trial court awarded the petitioner Rs. 15,000 per month as interim maintenance. But the husband challenged the order in revision, and the revisional court reduced the amount to Rs. 10,000. The petitioner approached the High Court, which restored the original amount, noting that the husband was employed as a Section Engineer in the Indian Railways, earning Rs. 1,10,000 per month.

Despite these orders, the woman reportedly received no maintenance for seven years, with arrears now exceeding Rs. 4.55 lakh. Her counsel submitted that she continues to live in dire financial conditions without any support.

Taking serious note, the High Court observed that neither the trial court nor the revisional court had directed the husband to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities, as mandated by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. It also pointed out that similar directions issued by the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi (2023) and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. (2024) were ignored.

“The inaction amounts to disregard and non-compliance with binding precedents of constitutional courts, reflecting indifference by the courts concerned,” Justice Diwakar noted, adding that such lapses erode public confidence in the judicial system.

Court remarked that courts below must act with “sensitivity, awareness, and responsibility” in matters relating to maintenance and domestic violence.

The High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate and Revisional Court to file explanations specifying the legal impediments, if any, that prevented compliance with the directions of the constitutional courts. They were also asked to explain the reasoning behind reducing the maintenance amount.

Court warned that evasive replies would invite administrative action and directed the Registrar (Compliance) to forward the order to the concerned courts through the Registrar General.

Case Title: Smt. Roshni Verma vs Sh. Prasun Kumar

Order Date: October 10, 2025

Bench: Justice Vinod Diwakar