J. Tilak Raj & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr., 2026

On 25 April 2016, the Magistrate granted monetary relief, directing Petitioner No. 1 to:

provide accommodation or pay ₹5,000 per month towards rent for Respondent No. 2 and her daughters;

pay ₹5,000 per month each to the two children; and

pay ₹5 lakh compensation.

The petitioners challenged the order. In appeal, the compensation was reduced from ₹5 lakh to ₹3 lakh, while the remaining directions were confirmed.

According to Respondent No. 2, the petitioner failed to comply with the monetary obligations and arrears accumulated to approximately ₹8.55 lakh. She therefore filed Crl.M.P. No. 930 of 2023, seeking attachment of the petitioner's salary.

On 4 June 2024, the Magistrate ordered attachment of the salary. Petitioner No. 1 then approached the Telangana High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking quashing of the attachment order. 

The Court made an important distinction between:

recovery under Section 125(3) CrPC, and

enforcement of monetary relief granted under Section 20 of the DV Act.

The petitioner argued that the first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC prevents recovery proceedings when the application is made more than one year after the maintenance became due.

The High Court rejected this argument. It held that the monetary liability in the present case originated from an order under Section 20 of the DV Act, rather than directly from an order under Section 125 CrPC.

Most importantly, Section 20(6) DV Act specifically empowers the Magistrate, where monetary relief remains unpaid, to direct the employer or debtor of the respondent to pay or deposit a portion of the respondent's salary, wages or debt towards the monetary relief.

Therefore, the one-year restriction applicable to the warrant mechanism under Section 125(3) CrPC could not automatically be imported into the independent enforcement mechanism under Section 20(6) DV Act. 

The petitioner treated the case as though it involved enforcement of a maintenance order exclusively under Section 125 CrPC. The Court disagreed.

The monetary relief had been granted under Section 20 DV Act, making the DV Act the statutory source of the liability. Consequently, its specific enforcement provision—Section 20(6)—could be invoked.

The Court clarified that the first proviso to Section 125(3) CrPC limits a particular method of recovery: issuance of a warrant under Section 125(3).

It does not automatically extinguish the underlying maintenance liability.

Thus, the expiration of the one-year period does not mean that the amount lawfully awarded as monetary relief under another statutory scheme disappears.

The judgment gives significant importance to Section 20(6) DV Act.

Where a respondent fails to pay monetary relief, the Magistrate can approach the source of the respondent's income and direct the employer or debtor to pay a portion of the salary or wages towards the amount payable.

The Court therefore viewed Section 20(6) as a specific statutory enforcement mechanism, rather than merely an ancillary provision.

The original monetary-relief order had already been challenged in appeal. Apart from the reduction of compensation from ₹5 lakh to ₹3 lakh, the appellate court confirmed the remaining directions.

Therefore, the monetary liability had attained finality.

The petitioner could not use the limitation argument under Section 125(3) CrPC to undermine an otherwise subsisting and enforceable order under the DV Act.

The decision is important for maintenance and domestic-violence proceedings because it clarifies that a party cannot necessarily avoid enforcement of a final monetary-relief order merely because the arrears extend beyond one year.

The judgment reinforces the principle that the statutory source of the liability and the statutory mechanism used for enforcement must be separately examined.