#Maintenance Orders

Allahabad High Court reinforces jurisdictional boundaries by holding that Gram Nyayalayas cannot review or overturn maintenance orders passed by Family Courts under Section 125 CrPC. The ruling clarifies that Section 8(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, exclusively vests such powers with Family Courts, preventing parallel adjudication by magistrates.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a respondent’s refusal to accept voluntarily offered maintenance payments cannot be construed as willful disobedience of a court order, and imposed ₹50,000 costs on the petitioner for abusing judicial process. This clarifies that compliance requires more than mere willingness to pay - it demands actionable cooperation, setting a critical precedent for enforcement in maintenance disputes.

MP High Court holds that persistent adjournments and non-enforcement of maintenance orders by a trial court justify transferring a matrimonial case under Section 24 CPC. The ruling underscores judicial accountability in ensuring compliance with maintenance orders, offering relief to aggrieved parties facing financial hardship due to procedural delays.

Bombay High Court holds that revisional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence in domestic violence cases unless findings are perverse or illegal. Key principles on Section 397 CrPC jurisdiction.