‘Merely Fighting for Getting Maintenance’: Allahabad HC on Wife Pursuing Multiple Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court recently declined to direct expeditious disposal of a maintenance execution case, observing that repeated litigation seeking maintenance before different fora was adding an “unwarranted burden” on family courts already struggling with heavy workloads.

A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi made the observations while dismissing a petition filed by one Shashi Gupta under Article 227 of the Constitution. Gupta had sought a direction to the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Lucknow, to decide her pending Execution Case No. 1675 of 2024 expeditiously.

What was the maintenance dispute before the Family Court?

Gupta had filed the execution case on July 19, 2024, seeking enforcement of a June 4, 2024 order passed by the family court in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 of the BNSS). Under that order, her husband had been directed to pay her Rs 7,000 per month as maintenance.

The high court also took note of Gupta's affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the family court. In it, she had disclosed that she had separately filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. An order had also been passed in those proceedings directing payment of Rs 4,500 as maintenance.

Court further noted that the couple had entered into a settlement. Under the arrangement, the husband had agreed to pay Rs 1.51 lakh and return goods, after which the parties would have their marriage dissolved by mutual consent. The husband paid Rs 50,000 towards the settlement, but the proposed mutual-consent divorce did not materialise.

'Non-compulsive’ litigation for maintenance

The high court noted that Gupta had not filed either a petition for divorce or one seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Instead, it said, she was “merely fighting for getting maintenance from her husband in different proceedings before different Courts".

Court acknowledged that a woman has a legal right to institute proceedings for maintenance under different statutory provisions. However, it drew a distinction between the existence of such a legal remedy and repeatedly pursuing proceedings having a similar objective.

“Although she had a legal right to institute numerous proceedings claiming maintenance under various statutory provisions,” court said, when a person claims to be unable to maintain herself or afford basic necessities, it did not appear proper to “multiply non-compulsive litigation”.

Court also said Gupta's failure to seek either restitution of conjugal rights or dissolution of marriage indicated that she appeared to be interested primarily in claiming maintenance before different fora, rather than settling the matrimonial dispute “either way”, by restoring the matrimonial relationship or dissolving the marriage.

‘Multiplication of litigation’ burdening family courts

The high court said the multiplication of optional and non-compulsive litigation was contributing to delays in family courts.

“Multiplication of optional and non-compulsive litigation is creating an unwarranted burden on the Family Courts which is causing delay in disposal of matters,” Justice Vidyarthi observed.

Court said all courts were functioning under heavy workloads and family courts, in particular, had been “artificially overburdened” by litigants pursuing multiple proceedings with similar objectives.

Against this backdrop, the high court found “no good ground” to issue a direction for expeditious disposal of Gupta's pending execution case. It accordingly dismissed the Article 227 petition.

Case title: Shashi Gupta v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow & Another

Order date: August 11, 2026

Bench: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi