In Jyoti Singh & Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(CRL) 2357/2026, decided on 29 September 2026), the Delhi High Court set aside a Family Court order that had dismissed a wife's maintenance execution for non-prosecution because she could not supply her husband's current address. The Court restored the execution and directed the Family Court to trace the husband with police assistance — holding that "an order of maintenance is not a private debt to be realised by the unaided efforts of the claimant."
An order on paper, nothing in hand
The petitioners — a wife and her minor daughter — had done everything the system asks of a maintenance claimant. They obtained an interim maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month each in 2023, effective from 26 November 2019, together with litigation expenses. The order attained finality. They then filed execution proceedings. What defeated them was not law but geography: the husband had disappeared, and when they could not supply his current address, the Family Court dismissed the execution for non-prosecution on 5 February 2026. The family was left holding a final order worth years of arrears, with no mechanism to realise a rupee of it.
Default cannot become defence
The High Court's reasoning rests on a simple inversion: the dismissal rewarded the very conduct the law seeks to punish. A judgment debtor who evades service and conceals his whereabouts commits a continuing default; to close the execution because of that concealment "would allow the defaulter to convert his own default into a defence." The Court emphasised that maintenance liability is continuing in nature and is discharged only by actual payment — not by the failure of any particular coercive step, and certainly not by the debtor's success in staying hidden. A dismissal with liberty to refile, the Court added, is no substitute: it simply restarts the claimant's ordeal from zero.
What the executing court must now do
The High Court restored the execution to its original number and directed the Family Court to:
— take effective steps to trace and serve the husband, including police assistance from the SHO of the concerned police station, who must file a status report on the steps taken;
— enquire into the judgment debtor's residence, employment and assets, including by summoning records from employers and banks;
— use the statutory enforcement modes available, rather than treating the claimant's inability to supply an address as the end of the matter.
The order draws on the established position that maintenance orders are enforceable through the full machinery of the law — the provisions formerly found in Sections 125(3) and 128 CrPC (now Sections 144(3) and 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Section 20(6) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the execution provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Sections 51, 55, 58 and 60 read with Order XXI.
Why this matters beyond one family
Execution is where maintenance law most often fails in practice. Orders are won after years of litigation and then die in the execution court because the respondent has changed jobs, moved cities or simply stopped appearing. This decision arms claimants with a clear proposition: the burden of tracing an absconding husband lies on the court's machinery, not on the wife. Practitioners should cite it when an executing court suggests that the matter be "closed with liberty" for want of a current address — and should affirmatively invoke the menu of coercive options it lists, from police tracing and asset disclosure to employer and bank summonses. For respondents, the message is equally plain: disappearance buys time, not immunity, and arrears accumulate with interest in the background.
This article summarises a judicial order for general information and is not legal advice. The enforcement steps appropriate in a given execution depend on the terms of the underlying order and the judgment debtor's circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
What had happened in the Family Court?
The wife and minor daughter held an interim maintenance order of Rs. 4,000 per month each, effective from November 2019, with Rs. 11,000 in litigation expenses, and the order had attained finality. Their execution petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5 February 2026 because they could not furnish the husband's current whereabouts.
Why did the High Court interfere?
Because dismissing an execution on the ground that the judgment debtor has made himself untraceable allows the defaulter to convert his own default into a defence. The maintenance liability is continuing and is discharged only by actual payment. A dismissal without exhausting the coercive machinery available in law is not a true judicial disposal.
What tools does an executing court have against an absconder?
The court is not confined to the address the decree holder supplies. It can seek police assistance to trace and serve the judgment debtor, direct him to disclose his assets, summon records from employers and banks, and deploy the enforcement modes available under the maintenance provisions read with the Code of Civil Procedure, including attachment and, where warranted, detention.
Which provisions govern this situation now?
The maintenance order was under the regime of Section 125 CrPC, whose enforcement provision (Section 125(3) with Section 128 CrPC) now corresponds to Sections 144(3) and 147 of the BNSS, 2023. The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 BNSS, and also drew on DV Act provisions and CPC execution machinery.