Maintenance Arrears Can Justify Coercive Recovery

The Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru dismissed a writ petition challenging an order of the Family Court that had directed issuance of an arrest warrant and FLW for non-payment of maintenance.

The dispute arose from a long-running maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Family Court had earlier fixed maintenance at Rs.1,80,000 per month from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2016, Rs.2,30,000 per month from 01.01.2017 to 31.12.2021, and Rs.2,80,000 per month from 01.01.2022 onwards. It also directed payment of arrears in instalments, with interest at 7.5% per annum and litigation costs.

The husband challenged that order in revision, and the matter remained pending. There were also interim directions from the High Court and the Supreme Court at different stages. However, by the time the Family Court passed the impugned order dated 11.09.2025, the High Court noted that there was no subsisting stay against recovery of arrears.

The wife moved the Family Court for coercive steps, asserting that more than Rs.3.67 crores remained due. The husband opposed the application, referring to pending proceedings, payments already made, and claimed financial constraints. He also argued that the Family Court had not followed the procedure under Section 125(3) read with Section 421 Cr.P.C. before issuing the warrant.

The High Court rejected the challenge. It accepted the Family Court’s finding that the arrears were substantial and that there was no material showing any lawful excuse for continued non-payment. The Court held that a maintenance order is not a mere declaration, but a continuing obligation. Where a party allows arrears to accumulate despite opportunity and without any subsisting stay, the conduct amounts to wilful disobedience.

The Court also held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be used to protect a defaulter. Interference would defeat the object of Section 125 Cr.P.C., which the Court described as a measure of social justice, and would weaken the authority of judicial orders.

The writ petition was dismissed.

Practical takeaway: In maintenance matters, pending appeals do not by themselves stop coercive recovery, and substantial unexplained arrears can justify arrest warrant proceedings.