The Allahabad High Court has criticized harshly the brakes on jurisdictional over-reach, ruling that village courts – Gram Nyayalayas, cannot meddle with or modify maintenance orders issued by regular Family Courts.
In a directed ruling at preventing legal anarchy, the High Court clarified that these grassroots forums are not meant to act as superior authorities over specialized statutory courts.
The Court’s stance was unambiguous:
“The cases filed before the Family Courts can be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya, to the extent and with a rider that, all such cases, where no such order, deciding the rights of the parties, has been passed, (say grant of interim maintenance), and the same order is not revisable or appealable before the Higher Court.”
This significant intervention came from Justice Harvir Singh while allowing a petition moved by Amit Kumar Rana.
The High Court essentially wiped out two orders from a Gram Nyayalaya that had dared to slash a maintenance amount originally fixed by a Principal Judge of the Family Court.
The legal battle has its roots in a 2019 matrimonial dispute. A Family Court in Bijnor had directed Amit Kumar Rana to pay monthly maintenance to his wife under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Instead of approaching a higher court, the husband took a detour to the Gram Nyayalaya in Dhampur, seeking a reduction in the maintenance amount.
To the surprise of many, the Gram Nyayalaya entertained the plea and altered the Higher Court’s decree.
In this backdrop, the principal issue before the Court was whether a Gram Nyayalaya, born out of the 2008 Act, holds the legal powers to tweak orders passed by a Family Court established under a specific 1984 central statute.
Upon examining the record, the High Court noted a clear inconsistency in the lower court’s logic.
Even though Gram Nyayalayas aim to make justice more accessible and prompt, they cannot assume the authority to review or vary decisions delivered by a Principal Judge of a Family Court.
The Court highlighted that the Family Court remains a specialized, top-tier forum for matrimonial disputes.
Towards the conclusion, the Court expressed its serious disapproval of this procedural shortcut. It emphasized that any change in maintenance due to shifting financial circumstances must be sought from the same court that passed the original order.
The Bench remarked that the Gram Nyayalay’s interference was “inconsistent with the Family Court Act” and legally unsustainable.
The High Court, addressing the matter, stressed that judicial ranking forms the backbone of the justice delivery system.
In trying to re-examine the Family Court’s verdict, the Gram Nyayalaya had encroached its jurisdictional limits.
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Gram Nyayalaya’s orders dated 25.03.2025 and 01.10.2024.
The original 2019 maintenance order was immediately restored. The parties were told in no uncertain terms that any future grievances must be taken up strictly within the “framework of the Family Court scheme.”
Case: Amit Kumar Rana vs State of U.P. and another
Case No: Matters Under Article 227 No. – 9426 of 2025
Date of Order: 10.04.2026
Status: Disposed of
