Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently underscored the critical need for family court judges to expedite maintenance cases with heightened sensitivity, particularly for destitute women battling for basic sustenance and dignity. Court lamented the delays plaguing such cases and emphasized the judiciary’s societal responsibility in ensuring justice without unnecessary procrastination.

The bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar directed the high court's Registrar (Compliance) to transmit a copy of the present order to the Director JTRI to sensitise the judicial officers during regular training sessions to observe judicial discipline and maintain judicial propriety in following directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Rajnesh v. Neha and another, (2021) and directions issued by the high court in Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, (2023), and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and another (2023), in letter and spirit.

"A checklist of essential points, including a clear outline of do's, should be prepared and circulated among the learned family court judges from time to time accordingly," court ordered.

Delivering its judgment on a criminal revision petition filed by a woman seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, the court reprimanded the family court for mechanically dismissing her petition for non-prosecution. The petitioner, a mother of a young daughter, had been entangled in legal battles since 2018, striving to secure financial support from her estranged husband. The high court described the dismissal as “erroneous, immoral, and inhuman.”

The marriage between the woman and her husband was solemnized in 2012, followed by years of alleged cruelty and dowry demands by the husband and his family. Despite a family court’s 2019 order granting monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000 for the wife and Rs 3,000 for her minor child, the husband reportedly evaded payment. The ex-parte maintenance order was later set aside and reinstated in 2023, only to be dismissed again due to procedural lapses.

In a scathing observation, the high court stressed the importance of judicial discipline and propriety, directing family court judges to address maintenance cases with a sense of urgency.

In an earlier order, the court had directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur, to submit a compliance report on adherence to the guidelines by the Supreme Court and the high court in matrimonial disputes. The report submitted by the Principal Judge stated that the family courts are adhering to the directions. However, the high court noted that in the report, certain issues that were concerned with the administration of the affairs of judges of the family court were flagged.

Further, court pointed out that by the same earlier order, the petitioner's matter had also been remanded to the Principal Judge Family Court, Saharanpur, to ensure compliance with guidelines issued in aforesaid cases while deciding the petitioner’s case afresh.

Court expressed hope that the petitioner's case must have been decided in accordance with the judgments referred to above. "...if not, then shall be decided within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order on merits," court ordered.

Case Title: xxx   vs.   State of U.P. and Another