The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a maintenance application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) cannot be dismissed on a mere technicality, such as a typographical error in a name. Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma set aside an order by the Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, which had rejected a wife and minor son’s plea for maintenance due to an incorrect name being mentioned for the child’s guardian. The High Court remanded the matter for a fresh decision on its merits.
Case Background
A criminal revision was filed by a woman and her minor son against an order dated December 16, 2024, from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the woman’s husband, alleging that he had neglected them, forcing them to live separately.
However, the Family Court rejected their application. The dismissal was based on the ground that in the application, the minor son was represented by his mother and guardian under an incorrect name, while the primary applicant was his actual mother. The trial court deemed the application “erroneous” due to this discrepancy.
Arguments Before the High Court
The counsel for the revisionists, led by Sri Ambleshwar Pandey, argued that the incorrect name was a simple “typographical error” and should have been recorded as the mother’s actual name. It was submitted that the trial court dismissed the application solely on this technical ground “without going into merit of the case.” Therefore, the counsel contended that the order was not lawful and was liable to be set aside.
The Learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.), representing the State, opposed the revision but, according to the judgment, “could not dispute the fact that learned trial court has rejected the application only on the ground that the name of mother of the revisionist no.2 was mentioned” incorrectly “and it was typographical error.”
The court noted that notice was served to the husband, but “none appeared on his behalf” during the High Court proceedings.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
After examining the records, Justice Sharma observed that the husband had initially appeared before the Family Court and filed objections but later became absent. He failed to cross-examine his wife, who had filed her affidavit in evidence, leading the trial court to close his opportunity for cross-examination on February 2, 2024, and subsequently his opportunity for evidence on March 4, 2024.
The High Court focused on the trial court’s reasoning for dismissal, noting that the Family Court judge rejected the plea because the name of the minor’s guardian in the application was incorrect, and there was no order from any competent court appointing the person with that name as the guardian.
Justice Sharma unequivocally held that the trial court’s order was flawed as it was based on a technicality rather than the substantive issues of the case. The judgment states, “The order passed by the learned trial court is based only on the technicality committed in typing the name of guardian of revisionist no.2…” where an incorrect name was used instead of the mother’s actual name.
Concluding the analysis, the Court held that the order could not be sustained. “Learned trial court has not passed the order on merit and on the basis of material available on record, therefore, it cannot be said to be lawful and appropriate and is liable to be set aside,” Justice Sharma recorded in the order.
Decision
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal revision. The impugned order of the Family Court dated December 16, 2024, was set aside.
The matter has been remanded back to the trial court with a direction “to pass order afresh on the basis of material available on record after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.” The High Court also directed that the petitioner is to “correct the name of guardian of the revisionist no.2 in the application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. with permission of the learned trial court.”
