Disposed¶37

Nikahat Khatun v. Prin. Judge Family Court Barabanki and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2025NA529/51/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 144 BNSS maintenance proceedings expedition; application under Section 529 BNSS; Family Court Barabanki; Nikahat Khatun vs Aftaf, CMC no. 2196 of 2024; case no. 2166 of 2025; analogy with Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now repealed); reliance on Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314; speedy and effective remedy for neglected wives, children and parents; disposal with direction for most expeditious decision.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with the observation/expectation that the court concerned take note of the Apex Court's observations in Anju Garg (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314) and decide the Section 144 BNSS application and proceedings most expeditiously. ¶37

Nikahat Khatun Vs Prin. Judge Family Court… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki should be directed to consider and decide the applicant's application dated 18-12-2024 under Section 144 BNSS (Nihkat khatun vs Aftaf, CMC no. 2196 of 2024) and conclude the related proceedings (case no. 2166 of 2025) in the interest of justice.

¶13

Court's answer

Proceedings under Section 144 BNSS are akin to the repealed Section 125 Cr.P.C.; considering the period of pendency and the applicant's need of money for sustenance, the object of Section 144 BNSS is to provide a speedy and effective remedy against persons who neglect or refuse to maintain their dependent wives, children and parents.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The application is disposed of with the observation that the court concerned is expected to take note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg and decide the application and proceedings under Section 144 BNSS most expeditiously.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 11, Saurabh Lavania, J., 15-09-2025: Application under S. 529 BNSS (No. 51 of 2025) by Nikahat Khatun seeking directions to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki to consider and decide her application dated 18-12-2024 under S. 144 BNSS ('Nihkat khatun vs Aftaf', CMC no. 2196 of 2024; case no. 2166 of 2025) and to conclude those proceedings in the interest of justice. Observing that S. 144 BNSS proceedings are akin to the repealed S. 125 Cr.P.C. and extracting the Apex Court's observations in Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314, on the social purpose, summary nature and speed contemplated in maintenance proceedings (with the underlying precedents Dukhtar Jahan, Vimala (K.), Kirtikant D. Vadodaria, Chaturbhuj, Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya and Nagendrappa Natikar), the Court disposed of the application with the expectation that the court concerned take note of those observations and decide the S. 144 BNSS application and proceedings most expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 51 of 2025

Nikahat Khatun

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

Prin. Judge Family Court Barabanki And Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Anil Kumar Nishad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	:

¶9

Court No. - 11

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

The instant application has been preferred for the following main relief:-

¶13

"1. To direct the opposite party no. 1 Principal Judge Family court Barabanki to consider and decide the application dated 18-12-2024 under section 144 of BNSS 2023 Nihkat khatun vs Aftaf CMC no. 2196 of 2024 and case no. 2166 of 2025 in the interest of justice. Copy of application dated 18-12-2024 is being annexed herewith as annexure no.1 to this petition.

¶14

2. To direct the opposite party no. 1 Principal Judge Family court Barabanki to conclude the proceeding under section 144 of BNSS 2023 Nihkat khatun vs Aftaf CMC no. 2196 of 2024 and case no. 2166 of 2025 in the interest of justice. is being annexed herewith as annexure no.1 to this petition."

¶15

In view of the nature of the proceedings/case in issue i.e. proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, akin to Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now repealed), it would be apt to indicate the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314 , which are extracted hereunder:-

¶16

" 9. At the outset, it may be noted that Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was

¶17

NA529 No. 51 of 2025

¶18

¶19

conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish and financial suffering of a woman who is required to leave the matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children, as observed by this Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353. This Court in the said case, after referring to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the principle of law as to how the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt with by the Court. It held as under:

¶20

" In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p. 631, para 16)

¶21

16. "… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code], it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner."

¶22

8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [ (1991) 2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para 3)

¶23

3. "Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife."

¶24

9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat [ (1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 762], while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para 15)

¶25

15. "… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in

¶26

NA529 No. 51 of 2025

¶27

¶28

Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation."

¶29

10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356], reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

¶30

6. "… Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [ (2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787]."

¶31

11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014) 14 SCC 452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children".

¶32

10. This Court had made the above observations as the Court felt that the Family Court in the said case had conducted the proceedings without being alive to the objects and reasons, and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. Such an impression has also been gathered by this Court in the case on hand. The Family Court had disregarded the basic canon of law that it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and to the minor children. The husband is required to earn money even by physical labour,

¶33

NA529 No. 51 of 2025

¶34

¶35

if he is an able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai(2008) 2 SCC 316, it has been held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife, by providing her food, clothing, and shelter by a speedy remedy. As settled by this Court, Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children. It also falls within the Constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India."

¶36

Considered the facts and circumstances of the case indicated in the application particularly the period of pendency of the case in issue as also the need of money for sustenance and also that the object of Section 144 BNSS is to provide a speedy and effective remedy against the persons, who neglect or refuse to maintain their dependent wives, children and parents.

¶37

Having considered the aforesaid, the instant application is disposed of with the observation that it is expected that the court concerned would take note of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment, referred above and decide the application and proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, quoted above, most expeditiously.

¶38

With the aforesaid, the instant application is disposed of .

¶39

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶40

September 15, 2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶41

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nikahat Khatun v. Prin. Judge Family Court Barabanki and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikahat Khatun v. Prin. Judge Family Court Barabanki and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Shalini Trivedi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Sachivalaya Lko. and Another

Manglu Vs State of U.P.

Piyush Dwivedi @ Kunwar Peeyush Raj and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Surya Kant Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Nikahat Khatun vs Prin. Judge Family Court Barabanki and Another

Manoj Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another