Allahabad High Court Rules Jail Term Does Not End Husband’s Duty to Pay Maintenance Arrears
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that sending a person to civil prison for failing to pay maintenance to his wife or children does not absolve him of his continuing legal obligation to clear the outstanding dues.
The Court clarified that imprisonment for non-payment of maintenance is merely a mode of enforcing compliance and cannot be treated as a substitute for the payment itself.
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, in a judgment dated March 24, observed that the principle of double jeopardy under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not apply to the execution of maintenance orders passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Court emphasized that proceedings related to maintenance do not result in either conviction or acquittal and therefore cannot attract the protection of Section 300 CrPC.
The Court observed while deciding a petition filed by Hasina Khatoon, who had challenged an order passed in January 2023 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court (Crime Against Women), Moradabad.
According to the case details, in July 2019, a Magistrate had directed the petitioner’s husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 4,000 per month to his wife and Rs 4,000 per month for their disabled son.
However, the husband failed to comply with the order, leading to an accumulation of arrears amounting to Rs 2,64,000.
Consequently, the wife filed an execution application seeking recovery of the amount.
Acting on the application, a recovery warrant was issued,d and the husband was arrested on October 30, 2022. As he continued to refuse payment, the Judicial Magistrate ordered his detention in civil prison for a period of 30 days.
Despite completing the period of imprisonment, the husband did not clear the outstanding maintenance amount.
The wife subsequently filed another application seeking recovery of the arrears. However, her plea was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that the husband had already undergone 30 days of civil imprisonment for non-payment of the said amount.
The trial court relied upon Section 300 CrPC, interpreting the earlier imprisonment as sufficient compliance.
The husband defended the trial court’s order, arguing that since he had already served the 30-day imprisonment as a penalty, he was no longer liable to pay the arrears.
He also questioned the maintainability of the petition under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the order could be challenged through an appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.
In its detailed 42-page judgment, the High Court rejected this argument and clarified that imprisonment for default in payment of maintenance cannot extinguish the liability to pay the due amount.
The Court held that such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of maintenance provisions meant to protect the financial rights of dependents.
Setting aside the order of the trial court, the High Court directed it to pass a fresh order for recovery of the outstanding arrears of Rs 2,64,000, along with simple bank interest at the rate of six percent.
The Court further ordered that if the husband fails to deposit the amount despite having already undergone civil imprisonment, the trial court shall proceed to attach his property for recovery of the dues.
The judgment reinforces the legal position that maintenance is a continuing obligation and defaulters cannot escape liability merely by undergoing imprisonment for non-payment.
