Procedural fairness is essential in maintenance proceedings; lack of proper notice and inadequate verification of financial claims rendered the subsequent ex-parte order unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) feeling aggrieved by ex-parte order of granting maintenance to Respondent No.2, vide order dated 08.11.2024 in M.C.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

2. Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge is illegal, irregular, and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The Petitioner was not served with notice at his correct workplace address, which is the Kalyan Nagar campus of CMR University, where he has been employed since 01.09.2023. The notice was erroneously sent to the main campus, where the Petitioner has never worked, thereby vitiating the service of process. It is further submitted that the Petitioner became aware of the proceedings only upon the filing of the arrears petition, when the security personnel at the main campus handed over the notice to the administrative staff, who then circulated it among various campuses. Upon inquiry with his Counsel, the Petitioner was informed that an ex-parte order had been passed against him. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings in May 2025, the Petitioner took prompt steps to file a petition to set aside the ex-parte order along with a delay condonation petition and vakalatnama. However, these were returned on the ground that permission to engage Counsel had not been sought. When the permission petition was filed, it too was returned with an endorsement stating that the main MC was closed. Consequently, all subsequent filings, including the counter, were returned without adjudication, thereby denying the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the matter.

3. The Petitioner submits that the repeated return of his applications, including the permission petition, set aside petition, and delay petition, without any speaking order or justification, amounts to procedural impropriety and has effectively barred him from accessing justice. This conduct is arbitrary and prejudicial to the Petitioner’s rights. The Petitioner is unable to comprehend why his application to engage Counsel was returned without reason, especially when the Respondent No.2 was permitted to engage legal representation. This differential treatment is unjust and indicative of bias.

4. The Petitioner further submits that he was not served with notice at his correct address and had no knowledge of the proceedings. The ex-parte order granting maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month is wholly disproportionate, considering the Petitioner’s monthly salary is Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.22,142/- is deducted towards bank loan repayment. The order, therefore, imposes an unreasonable financial burden and is liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.2 merely averred that the petitioner earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month without furnishing any proof. In the absence of substantiating evidence, the grant of maintenance based on such unverified claims is unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.2 is a well- qualified individual, having completed her M.Sc. and B.Ed., and is capable of earning her livelihood. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider that an educated spouse cannot remain idle and wholly dependent on maintenance