IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.
Hemant Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondents
Crl. Rev.P. 208/2018
Decided On : 31-08-2022
Section 401 - Criminal Procedure Code - 126(2) Cr.P.C., 126(3) Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to set aside an order granting interim maintenance to the respondent. The court considered whether setting aside an ex-parte order automatically sets aside the relief of granting ex-parte interim maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ex-parte order dated 01.12.2014, which included the grant of interim maintenance, was set aside in its entirety on 03.10.2016. The court directed the petitioner to continue paying interim maintenance until the application for grant of interim maintenance is decided within two months.
Issues: The main issue was whether setting aside an ex-parte order automatically sets aside the relief of granting ex-parte interim maintenance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the ex-parte order, including the grant of interim maintenance, was set aside in its entirety on 03.10.2016. The court also emphasized that the application for grant of interim maintenance should be decided within two months.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order dated 17.11.2017 was set aside. The trial court was directed to decide the application for grant of interim maintenance within two months, and the petitioner was ordered to continue paying interim maintenance until the application is decided.
JUDGMENT
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J. - The present petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.') praying for setting aside impugned order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge (APJ), Family Courts, Shahdara, Delhi and seeking issuance of directions to the learned Judge, Family Court to pass orders afresh on interim maintenance on merits of the case.
2. The question that arises for consideration is that in case an order is passed setting aside ex-parte proceedings, whether relief of granting ex-parte interim maintenance vide the same order, will also be automatically set aside or not.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/wife herein had filed an application seeking maintenance from the petitioner/husband herein on 03.06.2014.
4. On the date fixed for appearance of the petitioner/husband i.e. 01.12.2014, since he did not appear despite service of notice, he was proceeded ex-parte. On the said date, the following order was passed by the learned Principal Judge-Family Courts which reads as under:
'...Present: As above. Respondent is proceeded ex-parte. Heard petitioner on application seeking interim maintenance. According to the petition respondent is earning more than Rs. 40,000/- per month. There is no challenge to this averment. I, therefore, allow the application seeking interim maintenance. Respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month, month by month to petitioner till disposal of the petition. Put up for PE on 26.09.2015...'
5. Pursuant to the same, the learned counsel for the respondent/husband (petitioner herein) had moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte order. The ex-parte order was set aside by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts on 03.10.2016.
6. Thereafter, the case was transferred on administrative grounds to another Family Court, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The impugned order before this court was passed by the learned Judge, Family Court (transferee Court). In the impugned order dated 17.11.2017 the learned Judge held that there was no need to hear arguments on application for interim maintenance as though an order had been passed setting aside ex-parte proceedings dated 01.12.2014, the order granting maintenance on the same date vide the same order were not specifically set aside.
7. The learned Judge-Family Court held as under:
'...The copy of the order dated 03.10.2016 was given to both the parties. If this above order is read and taken into consideration, then it shows that only the order to proceed exparte was set aside and the order regarding disposal of interim maintenance application was not changed nor this application was got revived or ordered to be reconsidered. Even the prayer made in the application u/s 126 (2) Cr.P.C. of the respondent is pertaining to setting aside the exparte order and not the order of deciding interim maintenance application. It appears that inadvertently the case was again fixed for arguments on the interim maintenance application by my Ld. Predecessor before the case was transferred to this court on the last date of hearing. When infact this interim maintenance application was already decided on 01.12.2014 and even clarification was given on the same on 21.02.2015, then the same is not required to be reconsidered again. This order of fixing interim maintenance was not set aside through the order dated 03.10.2016 and only the exparte proceeding was set aside by my Ld. Predecessor. Thus, when there is no interim maintenance pending as on date, then there is no requirement to pass any fresh order...'
8. Aggrieved by this order the present petition was filed praying for setting it aside.
9. Counsel for the petitioner argued that since the entire ex-parte order dated 01.12.2014 was set aside, it included setting aside of the ex-parte order granting interim maintenance too as it was part of order dated 01.12.2014 itself. H
Setting aside an ex-parte order automatically sets aside the relief of granting ex-parte interim maintenance.
Setting aside ex-parte proceedings does not automatically set aside ex-parte interim maintenance; both must be clearly delineated.
A Family Judge can impose payment conditions when setting aside an ex parte maintenance order under Sections 125 and 126 Cr.P.C.
Court upheld that a Family Court can impose payment terms when setting aside an ex parte maintenance order, ensuring the entitlement of a spouse to maintenance is preserved.
Executing courts must adhere strictly to original decrees unless ambiguity arises; they can interpret, not modify, extant orders regarding maintenance from a specific application date.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.