BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. DEVADASS, J.
B. Karthikeyan - Petitioner
Versus
G. Roopavardhini - Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 572 of 2016 & Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 7243 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2016
Maintenance - Family Law - The court set aside the ex parte maintenance order and directed the husband to have an opportunity to present his case before the Trial Court and pay interim maintenance to his wife during the pendency of the maintenance case.
Fact of the Case:
The spouses were living separately due to matrimonial discordance, and the wife sought maintenance. The husband, who was working in Australia, challenged the ex parte maintenance order passed by the Family Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned ex parte maintenance order, restored the case to the Family Court, and directed the husband to file his counter within four weeks. It also ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance to the wife and instructed the Family Court to dispose of the maintenance case expeditiously.
Issues: Ex parte maintenance order, denial of opportunity to present case, payment of interim maintenance, expeditious disposal of maintenance case
Ratio Decidendi: Ex parte disposal of a maintenance case is legally valid, but the court can set it aside. The husband should be given an opportunity to present his case, and interim maintenance can be ordered during the pendency of the case.
Final Decision: The ex parte maintenance order was set aside, and the case was restored to the Family Court. The husband was directed to pay interim maintenance and given an opportunity to present his case. The Family Court was instructed to dispose of the maintenance case expeditiously.
1. As both the learned counsels representing the revision petitioner and the respondent are present and the scope involved in this revision is very narrow, we have decided to dispose of this revision today at the admission stage itself.
2. Roopavardhini/respondent and Karthikeyan/revision petitioner are spouses. The marital bondage arose between them on 09.09.2013 continuous even today. They were not blessed with any children. Subsequently, due to matrimonial discordance, they started living separately. She sought for maintenance in M.C. No. 140 of 2015. Ultimately, it came to the file of the learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruchirappalli.
3. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner got a good opportunity to work in Australia. He is working there. Finally, the maintenance case was taken up by the learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruchirappalli and the impugned order was passed on 30.03.2016, whereunder a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- has been ordered to the respondent and the revision petitioner was directed to deposit the same on or before 5th of every English Calender month in the Savings Bank Account of the respondent.
4. Aggrieved, the husband has directed this revision.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that already the personal appearance of the revision petitioner before the Trial Court has been dispensed with. He could not present for one hearing. In the circumstances, denying him reasonable opportunity, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also would contend that the revision petitioner is ready to face the case on merits. He may be given an opportunity.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the revision petitioner dragged his feet to the extent possible. Although he has become an absentee, his interest in the case is being taken care of by his father. But, there is no meaningful representation. In the circumstances, the Court has set him ex parte and passed the impugned order.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent also would submit that the revision petitioner has fell into arrears.
9. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and the materials on record.
10. Ex parte disposal is unknown to the criminal law. So also ex parte conviction and ex parte sentence. But, the Criminal Procedure Code permits ex parte disposal of a maintenance case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It is legally valid. However, such ex parte order of maintenance can be set aside by the same Court, because there is a provision to do so in the Criminal Procedure Code. But, an ex parte order of maintenance is no less a maintenance order. It has enforceability like an order passed by the Court on merits, until it is set aside in a manner known to law.
11. In the facts and circumstances, we have convinced that an opportunity should be given to the revision petitioner to putforth his case before the Trial Court and also to meet his wife's case. Let the petitioner/husband have an opportunity. And, by way of an interim measure, he shall also pay her maintenance during the pendency of the maintenance case.
12. In the circumstances, ordered as under:
(i) The impugned order, dated 30.03.2016, passed in M.C. No. 140 of 2015, by the learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, is set aside.
(ii) The learned Judge, Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, will restore M.C. No. 140 of 2015 to his file.
(iii) Within four weeks of such restoration, the revision petitioner will file his counter.
(iv) Thereafter, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides, the learned Judge will dispose of the maintenance case expeditiously.
(v) With effect from 01.09.2016 by 5th of every English Calender Month, the revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) in the Savings Bank Account of the respondent.
(vi) The respondent will open a Savings Bank Account in her name, if she is not already opene
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.