Back
Husband Bypasses Family Court, Allahabad HC Sends Him Back: Exhaust Recall Remedy First
In a procedural nudge for family law litigants, the dismissed a husband's criminal revision challenging an ex-parte maintenance order, insisting he first seek recall from the trial court under . Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay, sitting singly, underscored that statutory remedies must be pursued before escalating to higher courts, particularly in maintenance disputes under (now corresponding to ).
From Dubai Mechanic to Maintenance Defendant: The Family Rift Unfolds
Abhishek Gond, working as a mechanic assistant in Dubai, faced a maintenance petition filed by his wife, Baby Devi, and their two minor children in the . The case stemmed from the family's separation, with the wife alleging misconduct by the husband and claiming no independent income. On , she sought monthly maintenance.
Despite service of notice, Gond failed to appear, leading to an on . The family court awarded ₹4,000 per month to the wife and ₹2,000 each to the children, payable from the application date. Gond then filed Criminal Revision No. 2099 of 2026 directly in the high court, skipping the lower court's recall mechanism.
husband's Plea: Low Pay, Family Duties, and a Shared Roof?
Gond's counsel, , argued the family court misjudged his income at ₹50,000 monthly, claiming it was only ₹19,000 (including board and lodging) from his UAE job. He highlighted duties toward his elderly, ailing mother and submitted evidence—like a Gram Pradhan's letter and neighbor affidavits—suggesting the wife and children still lived in his house, enjoying his assets.
Wife's Stand: No Appearance, No Excuse—Pay Up
Represented by , the wife countered that she had no income, lived separately due to the husband's misconduct, and that Gond deliberately ignored notices, justifying the ex-parte ruling. They emphasized the statutory pathway under for challenging such orders, not a direct high court revision.
Court's Sharp Turn: Statutory Ladder Before High Court Jump
Delving into the record, Justice Upadhyay noted the followed due notice and was lawful. Crucially, provides an "": the trial court (family court here) can set aside ex-parte proceedings for "" within three months, allowing a merits hearing.
The bench clarified jurisdiction nuances under the — permits high court revision only after the family court's recall decision. Bypassing this rendered the revision "." Echoing insights from legal reports, the ruling aligns with BNSS transitions, reinforcing that doesn't bar recall pleas with sufficient cause.
No prior precedents were directly cited, but the decision hinges on interpreting CrPC provisions to prevent in maintenance cases.
Key Observations
"This Court has perused the record annexed with the paper-book and finds that the revisionist cannot challenge the before this Court as the same has been passed by the family court in accordance with law after due service of notice and the revisionist has an efficacious and alternative remedy to move an appropriate application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C."
"Against the passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ... the jurisdiction is vested in the Judicial Magistrate or the Family Court to recall the order under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C."
"In view of the availability of such , this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision is and is liable to be dismissed at this stage."
Back to Trial Court: Doors Open, But Clock Ticking
The revision stood dismissed on , with directions for Gond to file a recall application under (or 145(2) BNSS) promptly. Any delay? A condonation plea with affidavit would be considered lawfully.
This ruling streamlines maintenance proceedings, curbing premature high court overload while safeguarding absent parties' rights to contest. For NRIs like Gond or others skipping hearings, it signals: face the family court first, or risk procedural rebuff. Future cases may see stricter adherence to this "recall-first" protocol, balancing swift wife-and-child support with fair hearings.
