Report No. 132
3.10. First problem.-
With regard to the most serious impediment arising in the context of the fact that the awardee would have to rush to the court and to counsel at unaffordable time-cost, money-cost and effort-cost, the Commission can think of only one solution. The magistrate passing the order for monthly allowance should be empowered to direct the person held liable to pay the allowance to deposit in advance six months' allowance at the rate determined by him and keep it deposited till the order of maintenance holds the field unless, for reasons to be recorded in writing, he considers it unjust to do so in the circumstances of the case.
The concerned magistrate, of course, should be conferred the discretion to take into account all the relevant circumstances before passing such an order. If the magistrate is so empowered, the person held liable cannot harass the awardee by refusing or neglecting to make the payment from month to month and in time. The concerned magistrate must also be empowered to permit the awardee to withdraw the amount due from the deposited amount in case of default on the part of the person held liable.
The magistrate must also have the power to direct that the payment should be made either by depositing in a bank account opened in the name of the wife or by depositing the amount from month to month in the court or by remitting it by money order as may be convenient to the awardee after consulting the wishes of the awardee. The magistrate must also be empowered to direct the employer, if any, of the person held responsible to make a deduction of the amount of monthly allowance from the monthly salary of the person held liable to pay it to the awardee in the manner specified by the learned magistrate. It should also be provided that wilful default in making the deduction will constitute contempt of court. This solution would ameliorate the distress of the awardee to a considerable extent.