The Patna High Court has set aside an ex parte maintenance order issued by the Family Court in Begusarai, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance in cases involving maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court emphasized that such orders cannot be passed unless there is sufficient proof that the respondent has wilfully avoided service or neglected to attend the court proceedings. The judgment, delivered by Justice Arvind Singh Chandel, highlights the need for proper notice and opportunity to defend oneself, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
Background of the Case
The case concerned a maintenance application filed by the estranged spouse of the petitioner under Section 125 of CrPC. The Family Court, Begusarai, had ruled in favor of the applicant, directing the petitioner to pay ₹10,000 in monthly maintenance through an ex parte order dated July 6, 2023. The petitioner then filed a revision petition before the High Court, challenging the order on grounds of procedural irregularities and denial of an opportunity to be heard.
The petitioner contended that he had not been properly notified of the proceedings and thus could not attend the hearings. He argued that the ex parte order was passed without meeting the legal requirements specified in Section 126(2) of CrPC.
Legal Issues Involved
The case primarily revolved around the interpretation and application of Sections 125 and 126(2) of CrPC. The key legal issues included:
– Compliance with Notice Requirements: The law mandates that proper notice of the proceedings must be served to the respondent, either personally or through publication, before proceeding ex parte.
– Wilful Avoidance or Neglect: Section 126(2) of CrPC requires that the court be satisfied that the respondent has wilfully avoided service or neglected to attend the proceedings before passing an ex parte order.
– Right to Fair Hearing: The petitioner claimed that the ex parte decision violated the right to be heard, which is an essential aspect of natural justice.
Court’s Decision
Justice Arvind Singh Chandel analyzed the records and found significant flaws in the family court’s handling of the case. The High Court noted that:
1. No Record of Notice: The family court had not provided sufficient evidence of notice being served to the petitioner, either through personal service or publication, as required by law.
2. Absence of Wilful Neglect: The court observed that there was no explicit finding in the family court’s order sheet indicating that the petitioner wilfully neglected to attend the proceedings.
3. Inadequate Communication: The judgment emphasized that mere awareness of the maintenance case was not enough; the respondent must be informed about specific hearing dates to ensure an opportunity to appear and defend.
Important Observations of the Court
The High Court made crucial observations about compliance with Section 126(2) of CrPC, stating:
“Before proceeding ex parte, the learned Magistrate is required to satisfy that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court.”
The court further clarified that:
“Mere knowledge of the submission of the maintenance case is not sufficient; information about the date fixed by the learned Trial Court to the petitioner is also required.”
The High Court set aside the ex parte maintenance order dated July 6, 2023, and remanded the case to the Family Court, Begusarai, for a fresh hearing. The court directed that both parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case, and it instructed both parties to appear for the next hearing on November 12, 2024.
