The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance security concerns with the constitutional rights of access to justice and equal treatment before the law, emphasizing the fundamental right to access justice and the open court principle.

Gita Mittal, J.

1. The above criminal writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of a writ for quashing the order dated 15th December, 2012 and 17th January, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the petitioner‘s revision petition for his failure to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as a pre-condition for entertainment of the petition. It is contended that this pre-condition is imposed pursuant to a decision of a learned Single Judge of this court which is also challenged herein. The respondent no.2 before us is the first wife of the present petitioner, while respondent nos.3 to 5 are their three children who are residing with the mother.

2. When the case was listed on 19th March, 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner was pressing for interim stay of the maintenance order which, if granted, would cause irretrievable damage to his wife and children. Maintenance needed today – is of little solace if delayed. And the delay traumatic, if not disastrous for those deprived of it. There was urgency in the matter as on the one side, a wife and children were awaiting maintenance while on the other, the petitioner was facing punitive action for noncompliance of the maintenance order. The matter was a family issue. We were exploring the possibility of referring the parties to mediation. Therefore, on the 19th March, 2013 when the matter was listed before us, we had issued a direction to the parties to remain present in person in court on the next date of hearing.

3. On the next date i.e. the 9th of April, 2013, the respondent nos.2, 3 & 5 were personally present. The petitioner was represented by counsel. However, no effective proceedings could take place as the petitioner was not present. The order dated 9th April, 2013 explains the reasons for his absence and we reproduce it hereafter:

“1. Despite the matter having been passed over once, the petitioner – Sajid Ali has not appeared in person. It is now 12.10 pm.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in person has come to the Delhi High Court from Aligarh but has not been permitted to enter the court premises as he does not have photo identity card. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed an affidavit of the petitioner dated 5th April, 2013 to the effect that he is educated only upto 7th standard and is an unskilled labourer having no regular employment and living in the small town of Aligarh. For inability of the petitioner to produce the photo identity card he has not been granted a gate pass and has not been permitted access into the court premises.

3. The instant case raises a challenge by the petitioner to an award of maintenance in favour of his former wife - the respondent no.2 and their three children impleaded before us as respondent nos.3 to 5.

4. Pursuant to the notice issued by us on 19th March, 2013, respondent no.2 – Roshanara is present along with her daughters respondent nos.3 and 5 who are residing with the father of the respondent no.2 at Delhi. They state that they were issued the gate pass because they had photo identity cards in the nature of election cards. However, respondent nos.2, 3 and 5 submit that they have no means of livelihood at all and do not have the means to engage the services of a lawyer. They are directed to appear before the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee who shall assign them a legal aid counsel.

5. The present case is one in a series of cases where it has been brought to our notice the difficulty being faced by the litigants in accessing the court system in the current gate pass regime.

6. Today, in the present matter, for want of a photo identification a litigant who has come to attend this matter from Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh has been unable to enter the court premises, let alone appear before us in an issue relating t