Allahabad HC Dismisses Wife's Petition for Expeditious Disposal of Maintenance Execution Case, Cites Multiplication of Litigation
The Lucknow Bench declined to direct the Family Court to expeditiously decide an execution case, finding the petitioner had multiplied parallel maintenance proceedings without pursuing divorce or restitution.
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, on 11 August 2026, dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Shashi Gupta, seeking a direction to the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Lucknow to decide Execution Case No. 1675 of 2024 expeditiously. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, sitting singly, declined to interfere after finding that the petitioner had simultaneously pursued multiple maintenance proceedings under different statutes while taking no steps to either restore or dissolve her marriage, thereby adding to the burden already weighing on the Family Courts.
The Execution Case Before the Family Court
The proceedings in the High Court arose from an execution case the petitioner filed on 19 July 2024. That case sought enforcement of an order dated 4 June 2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1506 of 2022 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. By that order, opposite party no. 2 — her husband Vivek Gupta — had been directed to pay Rs. 7,000 per month to the petitioner as maintenance.
The execution case was filed under Section 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner came to the High Court under Article 227 seeking a direction for its expeditious disposal.
The petition also impleaded the State of Uttar Pradesh through the Principal Secretary, Home (Civil Secretariat). The learned Additional Government Advocate raised a preliminary objection that the State was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the execution proceedings. Counsel for the petitioner conceded the point and did not press the petition against the State.
Parallel Maintenance Proceedings and Failed Settlement
From the petitioner's own affidavit of assets and liabilities filed before the Family Court, the High Court found that she had also filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. An order under that complaint had directed payment of Rs. 4,500 per month as maintenance — a separate stream of relief running alongside the Section 125 Cr.P.C. order.
The court also noted a settlement that had been reached between the parties. Under that agreement, the husband was to pay Rs. 1,51,000 and return certain goods, with the parties agreeing to have their marriage dissolved by mutual consent. The husband paid Rs. 50,000 in part performance. The settlement, however, did not proceed to a mutual consent divorce.
Despite these developments, the petitioner had filed neither a divorce petition nor a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Her litigation remained confined entirely to maintenance claims across different forums.
The Court's Reasoning on Multiplied Litigation
Justice Vidyarthi did not dispute the petitioner's legal right to invoke multiple statutory provisions for maintenance. The court accepted that she was entitled, as a matter of law, to pursue claims under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and under the Domestic Violence Act simultaneously.
The concern, however, was with the practical picture. On the one hand, the petitioner claimed she was unable to maintain herself and could not afford even basic necessities. On the other hand, she was running parallel maintenance proceedings without taking any step — either for restitution of conjugal rights or for dissolution of the marriage — that might bring finality to the matrimonial dispute.
The court drew an inference from the absence of any petition for divorce or restitution: the petitioner was interested only in extracting maintenance through multiple fora, not in settling the underlying matrimonial dispute in either direction.
“Multiplication of optional and non-compulsive litigation is creating an unwarranted burden on the Family Courts,” the court observed, noting that Family Courts were already overburdened and that such multiplication of proceedings with a similar object by numerous litigants was a systemic problem.
Against that backdrop, the High Court held it found “no good ground to issue any direction to the Family Court for expeditious disposal of the pending matter.”
The court did not hold that the execution case was without merit or that the petitioner had no enforceable right under the Section 125 order. Its refusal was specifically addressed to the prayer for a High Court direction commanding the Family Court to decide the case on a fast track. The Family Court proceeding remains pending; the High Court simply declined to supervise its pace.
Outcome
The petition in A227 No. 4292 of 2026 was dismissed by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on 11 August 2026. No directions were issued to the Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Lucknow. Execution Case No. 1675 of 2024 continues before the Family Court without any High Court direction for expeditious disposal.