Orders under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 125 CrPC) are meant to be swift, but the real contest often begins after the order — when instalments stop. Sub-section (3) of Section 144 arms the Magistrate with a fine-recovery warrant and imprisonment for wilful default, yet it also contains a discipline claimants overlook at their peril: no warrant issues for recovery of any amount due unless the application is made within one year of the date it became due. This explainer walks through the enforcement machinery, the one-year rule, and the strategy on both sides of an arrears fight.
The enforcement machinery in outline
Section 144(3) BNSS operates in two stages. First, on proof of default without sufficient cause, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines — which imports the attachment-and-sale machinery of Section 461 BNSS (formerly Section 421 CrPC), including attachment of movables and recovery as arrears of land revenue. Second, for the whole or any part of the amount remaining unpaid after execution of the warrant, the court may sentence the defaulter to imprisonment for a term up to one month for each month\'s allowance remaining unpaid, or until payment if sooner made.
1. Compute and apply
An execution application itemising each unpaid instalment, its due date and the running total — filed within one year of each instalment falling due.
2. Show-cause and warrant
The defaulter must show sufficient cause; failing that, the fine-recovery warrant issues against his assets.
3. Sentence for the shortfall
What the warrant does not realise can be visited with imprisonment, month for month — a coercive measure that leaves the debt alive.
Why the one-year rule exists
The proviso reflects a legislative suspicion of manufactured mountains of arrears: maintenance is meant for current subsistence, and a claimant who genuinely depends on it will pursue default promptly. The rule therefore pushes diligence — but it can operate harshly on claimants who delayed out of hope of reconciliation, fear, or simple ignorance. The safe practice is mechanical: diarise default, file for execution as soon as instalments accumulate, and file successive applications while default continues rather than waiting for a final tally.
Interim maintenance orders are enforceable in the same way as final orders, and arrears frequently accumulate during the very period the quantum litigation is being fought. A respondent\'s revision or appeal does not by itself suspend the obligation — absent a stay, every month\'s instalment falls due and its one-year clock starts running.
Defending an execution: what counts as sufficient cause
The defaulter\'s statutory shield is "sufficient cause" for non-compliance. Genuine incapacity — proven job loss, serious illness, actual insolvency — is examined on evidence, and courts calibrate rather than excuse: instalment schedules for arrears are common. What does not work is the plea of means exhausted by other litigation, voluntary resignation, or income routed to relatives; courts assess earning capacity realistically and treat able-bodied evasion as wilful. A respondent whose circumstances have genuinely changed should apply for modification of the order prospectively rather than defaulting and defending later — arrears accrued under a subsisting order are rarely forgiven.
Strategy notes for both sides
For claimants: seek a payment mode that leaves a record (bank transfer tied to a date each month), apply early and repeatedly, ask for salary attachment where the defaulter is employed, and place the defaulter\'s asset disclosures from the maintenance proceedings before the executing court. For respondents: pay through banking channels, keep proof, and treat modification — not self-help reduction — as the only lawful response to changed circumstances. Both sides should remember that maintenance orders under multiple statutes are adjusted against each other, so a consolidated arrears picture across DV Act, Section 144 BNSS and matrimonial proceedings avoids double recovery and double default alike.
The chamber of Advocate Manish Jha appears in maintenance and execution proceedings before the Family Courts and Mahila Courts of Delhi and the High Court of Delhi. This article is for general information; it is not legal advice and does not create an advocate-client relationship.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly does the one-year rule say?
The first proviso to Section 144(3) BNSS provides that no warrant shall be issued for recovery of any amount due under the section unless an application is made to the court to levy that amount within one year from the date on which it became due. Each monthly instalment carries its own one-year clock, so delay forfeits the warrant remedy instalment by instalment, oldest first.
Does missing the one-year window extinguish the arrears?
The bar in the proviso is on issuing the recovery warrant, and courts have treated it as a rule of procedure aimed at preventing claimants from deliberately accumulating arrears. A claimant who has slept over stale instalments faces a serious obstacle in warrant proceedings, which is precisely why applications should be filed promptly and renewed periodically while default continues.
Can a defaulting husband be jailed?
Yes. For amounts remaining unpaid after execution of the warrant, the Magistrate may sentence the defaulter to imprisonment up to one month for each month's unpaid allowance, or until earlier payment. Imprisonment is a coercive lever, not a discharge — release does not wipe out the arrears, and fresh default invites fresh process.
What other recovery routes exist besides the warrant?
The fine-recovery machinery permits attachment and sale of movables and recovery as arrears of land revenue through the Collector. In parallel, maintenance orders under the DV Act and Hindu Marriage Act have their own enforcement provisions, and Family Courts in Delhi routinely direct salary attachment through employers where the defaulter is in service.