Trial Court Cannot Disregard Binding Precedents with Impunity: Allahabad High Court Demands Written Explanation from Magistrate for Ignoring Supreme Court Guidelines in DV Maintenance Case

“Why Was Affidavit of Assets Not Sought Despite Supreme Court's Mandate?” – High Court Holds Judicial Magistrate Accountable in Domestic Violence Proceedings Pending Since 2018. In a significant exercise of constitutional supervisory jurisdiction, the Allahabad High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Varanasi, to furnish a detailed explanation for failing to comply with binding directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha regarding mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

The direction was issued in Smt. Roshni Verma v. Sh. Prasun Kumar, Matter under Article 227 No. 11405 of 2025, where the petitioner-wife approached the High Court alleging that despite being awarded interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month, she had not received a single payment since 2018, and no effective enforcement was undertaken by the trial court.

“Disregard of Apex Court Rulings Cannot Be Treated as Procedural Oversight” – Court Flags Judicial Negligence

Taking serious note of the trial court’s failure to direct the respondent to file an affidavit of income and assets, despite being served as far back as May 2019, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed:

“Neither the trial court nor the revisional court directed the respondent to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities. Such inaction amounts to disregard and non-compliance with binding precedents of the constitutional courts.”

The Court cited the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, which issued uniform guidelines for maintenance cases, mandating that both parties must file detailed affidavits of income, expenditure, assets, and liabilities, to ensure fair and just determination of maintenance. Ignoring this requirement, the High Court held, undermines the very purpose of statutory protection for women under the Domestic Violence Act.

“Trial Courts Cannot Choose Which Precedents to Follow” – Accountability Mechanism Triggered

In a stern move, the High Court directed the Magistrate concerned to personally explain the legal impediments, if any, that prevented him from seeking asset disclosure from the respondent-husband:

“The learned Judicial Magistrate... is directed to furnish an explanation mentioning the legal impediments which prevented compliance with the directions of the constitutional courts... directing the parties to file affidavit of assets and liabilities.”

This is a rare and pointed instance of the High Court invoking judicial accountability, emphasizing that non-compliance with constitutional mandates cannot be treated as mere administrative lapse. It stressed that procedural indifference in matters of maintenance amounts to denying women their fundamental right to dignified existence under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“Inaction Has Direct Consequences on Justice Delivery in DV Matters” – Magistrate Warned of Administrative Action

The Court made it clear that the explanation must be specific and substantive, and not a routine or evasive justification, warning:

“Evasive reply may invite administrative action.”

The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to transmit the order to the concerned Judicial Magistrate, and the explanation is to be routed through the Registrar General before the next hearing, fixed for 14th October 2025.

A Strong Reminder to the Subordinate Judiciary: Constitutional Compliance Is Not Optional

This development underscores a crucial judicial principle — the High Court, under Article 227, acts as a constitutional sentinel to ensure that subordinate courts not only decide cases fairly, but also adhere to binding precedents of higher courts. Justice Diwakar’s order stands as a message to trial courts that procedural laxity and neglect of binding case law in gender-sensitive matters like maintenance and domestic violence will not be tolerated.

“Failure to enforce binding judicial directions in maintenance cases is not a procedural lapse — it is a constitutional failure.”

Date of Decision: 10 October 2025