Daijiworld Media Network – Bengaluru
Bengaluru, May 16: The Karnataka high court (HC) has upheld coercive action, including an arrest warrant, issued against a Mangaluru man for allegedly failing to pay court-ordered maintenance to his wife, reinforcing that wilful non-payment cannot be shielded by pending proceedings.
The ruling came while hearing a petition filed by Shailesh Kumar challenging the arrest warrant issued by the Mangaluru family court over alleged default in payment of maintenance.
A bench led by Justice Dr K Manmatha Rao observed that repeated failure to comply with maintenance orders amounts to ‘wilful disobedience’ of judicial directions.
The court noted that litigants cannot indefinitely delay payment of maintenance by citing pending proceedings or interim applications, and affirmed that courts are empowered under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to issue arrest warrants against defaulters.
“Orders directing payment of maintenance cannot be postponed merely because proceedings are pending before higher courts,” the bench observed.
The court further stated that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to explain his non-compliance but failed to provide any valid justification before the trial court.
Rejecting the argument that the arrest warrant violated Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteeing personal liberty, the High Court held that lawful enforcement of maintenance orders does not infringe fundamental rights.
Background of the case
Records show that Shailesh Kumar and Nisha S Kumar were married in 1998 and have a son born in 2000.
Following marital disputes, Nisha approached the family court in 2014 seeking interim maintenance of Rs 5 lac per month.
The court initially awarded Rs 12,750 per month as interim maintenance, which was later revised after detailed hearings to between Rs 1.80 lac and Rs 2.80 lac per month for the wife and son, along with 7.5% interest on arrears.
Shailesh Kumar later challenged the order before the high court through a revision petition, which is still pending.
Meanwhile, Nisha sought enforcement of the order, prompting the family court to direct deposit of 50% of the awarded amount.
After alleged non-compliance, the family court issued an arrest warrant. Police arrested Shailesh Kumar and produced him before the court, after which he was released on bail.
Before the high court, the petitioner argued that his monthly income was only Rs 42,000 and that he was unable to pay maintenance running into lacs. He also claimed the warrant violated his fundamental right to personal liberty.
The high court, however, dismissed the plea and upheld the family court’s action, affirming strict enforcement of maintenance obligations.