The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has taken a stern view of the handling of a domestic violence case, directing a Judicial Magistrate and a Revisional Court judge in Varanasi to furnish explanations for non-compliance with binding Supreme Court precedents. Justice Vinod Diwakar observed that the conduct of the lower courts “reflects a systemic failure and erodes the confidence of litigants in the judicial system,” and warned that an “evasive reply may invite administrative action.”
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a woman who sought the expedition of her complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which has been pending since 2018.
Background of the Case
The petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, on November 6, 2018, before the Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. According to the facts presented to the High Court, the respondent-husband was served with notice on May 28, 2019, but failed to appear. Consequently, the trial court proceeded with ex-parte evidence on September 23, 2019.
The respondent appeared before the court for the first time on January 29, 2021, nearly two years and two months after the case was filed. On September 7, 2021, the trial court granted an interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the petitioner-wife.
Aggrieved by this order, the respondent-husband filed a criminal revision, where the revisional court reduced the maintenance amount to ₹10,000 per month. The petitioner-wife then challenged this reduction before the High Court in a separate criminal revision. A coordinate Bench of the High Court, after considering the respondent’s employment as a Section Engineer in the Indian Railways with a salary of ₹1,10,000 per month, restored the interim maintenance to ₹15,000 per month.
Submissions Before the High Court
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the proceedings being pending since 2018, the petitioner “has not received a single penny of maintenance to date and is living a life of destitution without any financial support.” It was further argued that despite the respondent’s substantial salary, he has failed to pay any maintenance, leading to an accumulation of arrears amounting to ₹4,55,000.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Vinod Diwakar, upon perusing the record, expressed dismay at the procedural lapses by the lower courts. The Court noted that despite explicit directions from the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 and the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Parul Tyagi v. Gaurav Tyagi, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2684, neither the trial court nor the revisional court had directed the respondent to file a mandatory affidavit of assets and liabilities.
The Court stated, “Such inaction amounts to disregard and non-compliance with binding precedents of the constitutional courts, reflecting a state of indifference by the courts concerned.”
Furthermore, the judgment highlighted that a previous direction from the High Court in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and another (2024) SCC OnLine All 2260, which mandated the recovery of maintenance from the respondent’s salary, had also not been complied with.
The Court made a critical observation on the recurring nature of such lapses, stating, “This Court on multiple occasions has issued directions to Family Courts to act with sensitivity, awareness, and responsibility, especially in matters concerning maintenance and domestic violence. However, these directions are not being complied with by the learned trial court judges, its unfortunate.”
Decision and Directions
In light of these findings, the High Court issued specific directions. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi, has been directed to “furnish an explanation mentioning the legal impediments, which prevented compliance with the directions of the constitutional courts in the present matter directing the parties to file affidavit of assets and liabilities.”
Similarly, the Revisional Court has been directed “to submit an explanation indicating the material on record on the basis of which the maintenance amount from Rs. 15,000/- was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- per month.”
The Registrar (Compliance) of the High Court has been instructed to transmit a copy of the order to the concerned judicial officers. The explanations are to be submitted through the Registrar General of the High Court on or before the next date of hearing, scheduled for October 14, 2025.
