Introduction

This decision of the Allahabad High Court addresses the chronic problem of delays in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)—now mirrored by Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)—and the quality of assistance rendered to courts by counsel. The petitioner, Smt. Saba @ Saba Siddiqui, approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking supervisory directions to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich, for the expeditious disposal of her maintenance case (Case No. 627/11/2023).

Despite the Family Court having granted interim maintenance on 12 March 2025 and fixing the matter for evidence on 23 May 2025, final adjudication had not occurred. The High Court was compelled to comment on the poor organization of the record filed with the supervisory petition and the broader systemic burden—particularly the heavy bail docket and the Supreme Court’s directive to decide bail matters within two months—that constrains judicial time.

Against this backdrop, the Court reaffirmed the obligation of subordinate courts to deal with maintenance claims “expeditiously” and, exercising its Article 227 jurisdiction, directed the Family Court to proceed without granting any unnecessary adjournments and to fix dates at short intervals. The decision also reiterates the professional responsibility of advocates to aid in efficient adjudication.

Summary of the Judgment

• The High Court noted the petitioner’s Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS proceedings had been pending since June 2023, with interim maintenance granted in March 2025 but final disposal still awaited.
• Observing repeated non-appearance by the respondent before the Family Court (leading to an ex parte order), the Court emphasized that maintenance applications must be decided expeditiously.
• Although critical of the disorganized manner in which the Article 227 petition’s annexures were presented, the Court nonetheless examined the record to ensure justice, citing the heavy workload and the Supreme Court’s requirement to decide bail matters within two months.
• Disposition: The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich, to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournments, and by fixing dates at short intervals.

Detailed Analysis

A. Factual Matrix and Procedural Posture

• Maintenance proceedings filed: 07 June 2023 under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS).
• Interim maintenance granted: 12 March 2025; case fixed for evidence on 23 May 2025.
• Respondent’s conduct: Repeated abstention from appearance; Family Court ordered ex parte proceedings.
• Supervisory petition: Filed under Article 227 seeking expeditious disposal; High Court noted deficient assistance from counsel due to disorganized, haphazard annexures.

B. Questions Before the Court

• Whether, in the circumstances of delay and the respondent’s non-appearance, a supervisory direction is warranted to the Family Court to expedite the Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS proceedings.
• What case-management standards should guide subordinate courts handling maintenance claims, particularly regarding adjournments and scheduling.

C. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court’s discussion referenced two prior decisions that urge cooperation and responsible assistance from the Bar to enable speedy justice:

• Banwari Lal Kanchal v. Dr. Bhartendu Agarwal, 2023 SCC OnLine ALL 2510: The High Court had requested counsel to help reduce non-productive expenditure of judicial time. This case is part of a line of decisions where the Court emphasizes professional obligations of advocates to facilitate efficient case flow.
• Vipin Tiwari v. State of U.P., 2025 On Line ALL 5184: Reiterates that advocates are “Officers of the Court” and must be concise and precise in pleadings and oral submissions, mindful of other litigants waiting for justice. The present order draws upon this principle to critique disorganized filings and to reinforce the duty of the Bar.

These precedents do not alter substantive maintenance law; rather, they shape the procedural ethos—discipline, organization, and efficiency—that the Court expects, especially in high-volume jurisdictions.

D. Legal Reasoning

• Article 227 Supervision: The High Court’s power under Article 227 is supervisory, enabling it to ensure that subordinate courts adhere to law and to procedural fairness, including timely disposal. The Court invoked this jurisdiction to correct case-flow inertia and to direct meaningful case management in the Family Court.
• Nature of Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS Proceedings: Maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and designed to provide swift relief to dependents. The Court underscores that such matters “need to be decided expeditiously,” reflecting their socio-economic urgency.
• Ex Parte Progression Where Warranted: Given recorded non-appearance by the respondent and the Family Court’s ex parte order, the High Court signaled that procedural tools to avoid delay should be employed when justified, while remaining within the bounds of law.
• Case-Management Directions: The operative direction mandates that the Family Court proceed “expeditiously,” avoid “unnecessary adjournments,” and fix dates at “short intervals.” This formula is a pragmatic case-management instruction: restrain dilatory tactics and maintain momentum in evidence and final adjudication.
• Systemic Context—Bail Docket Pressure: The Court explicitly referred to:
  • A heavy daily roster (including all minor bail applications, ED/CBI matters, matters involving legislators, etc.).
  • The Supreme Court’s direction to decide bail matters within two months of filing.
  The point is not to subordinate maintenance to bail, but to explain the acute time scarcity that makes counsel’s responsible assistance indispensable. This context strengthens the Court’s call for precision, organization, and brevity in filings and arguments.

E. Directions Issued

The High Court disposed of the Article 227 petition with specific case-management instructions:

• The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich shall proceed with Case No. 627/11/2023 “expeditiously in accordance with law.”
• No “unnecessary adjournment” shall be granted to either party.
• Dates are to be fixed at “short intervals.”

While no outer time limit was prescribed, the direction is clear: progress must be steady, deliberate, and resistant to delay.

F. The BNSS Transition and Its Relevance

The order references both Section 125 CrPC and Section 144 BNSS, recognizing the transition to the BNSS framework. Section 144 BNSS corresponds to Section 125 CrPC in substance—relating to maintenance of wives, children, and parents—ensuring continuity of remedy across procedural regimes. Citing both provisions ensures the Family Court treats the matter consistently under the applicable law during this transitional period.

G. Impact and Future Implications

• For Family Courts: This order reinforces that maintenance proceedings must be prioritized for timely resolution, with firm control over adjournments and proactive scheduling. Ex parte progress, where warranted, should not be shyly avoided.
• For the Bar: The judgment spotlights counsel’s responsibility as “Officers of the Court.” Disorganized filings and prolix submissions have real costs for other litigants and for the justice system; counsel are expected to maintain filing hygiene, precision, and brevity.
• For Litigants: Applicants in maintenance cases may reference such supervisory directions to guard against avoidable delay. Non-appearing respondents risk ex parte determination.
• For Case-Flow Management: The articulation of “no unnecessary adjournments” and “short intervals” can guide trial courts in similar summary jurisdictions—maintenance, domestic violence relief, and other urgent social-welfare adjudications.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Article 227 (Supervisory Jurisdiction): A constitutional power enabling High Courts to supervise subordinate courts and tribunals to ensure legality, fairness, and efficiency. It is not an appeal on merits; it is used sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors, grave procedural lapses, or undue delays.
• Section 125 CrPC / Section 144 BNSS (Maintenance): A summary, quick remedy to prevent destitution by ordering maintenance for wives, children, and parents. The focus is timely subsistence support, not a full-blown civil trial.
• Interim Maintenance: Temporary financial support granted while the main maintenance case is pending, to alleviate immediate hardship.
• Ex Parte Proceedings: When one party repeatedly fails to appear despite notice, the court may proceed in their absence. Such orders can be revisited if the absent party later shows sufficient cause, but non-appearance carries risk of adverse outcomes.
• “No Unnecessary Adjournments”: Adjournments are not to be granted as a matter of course; only legitimate, unavoidable reasons should justify rescheduling. Courts should actively curb tactics intended to delay adjudication.
• Short-Interval Hearings: Scheduling the next date relatively soon (rather than months apart) to keep the momentum of evidence, arguments, and adjudication, thereby reducing procedural stagnation.

Conclusion

This judgment crystallizes a clear procedural standard for maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC/Section 144 BNSS: courts must proceed expeditiously, minimize adjournments, and maintain short-interval scheduling, particularly where the respondent defaults and ex parte progression is warranted. The High Court uses Article 227 not to revisit merits, but to galvanize case management in the Family Court, mindful of systemic constraints like heavy bail rosters and finite judicial time.

Equally, the ruling reiterates a vital institutional message: advocates are central to efficient justice delivery. Disorganized filings and diffuse advocacy impose real costs on litigants and the judiciary. By aligning professional responsibility with case-flow discipline, this decision furthers the broader objective of timely, effective relief in social-welfare proceedings—an objective that lies at the heart of maintenance jurisprudence.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts can and will deploy Article 227 to enforce expeditious disposal of summary maintenance cases.
• Family Courts are directed to avoid unnecessary adjournments and to fix short-interval dates.
• Repeated non-appearance by respondents justifies ex parte progression, subject to law.
• The Bar’s duty to aid judicial efficiency is not hortatory—it is a professional obligation with systemic consequences.
• BNSS transition does not dilute the urgency or availability of maintenance relief; Section 144 BNSS continues the Section 125 CrPC framework.