Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are welfare-oriented, allowing both parties to present their case in Family Court despite allegations that may affect entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the maintenance proceeding in CRP No.133 of 2007 pending in the court of learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack and to set aside all consequential orders, contending that continuation of the proceeding amounts to abuse of process in light of the wife’s alleged conduct and criminal conviction.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The dispute arises out of CRP No. 133 of 2007 pending before the Learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack, filed by the wife (Opp. Party No.2) under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance from the husband (petitioner in CRLMC).

(ii) In CRP No. 133/2007, the Family Court passed an ex parte order dated 20.08.2008 directing the husband to pay Rs.1,200 per month to the wife from the date of application i.e., 16.03.2007, recording that the husband entered appearance but remained absent and was set ex parte on multiple dates before final order.

(iii) The husband challenged the ex parte maintenance order before the High Court in RPFAM No. 02 of 2009, which was disposed of on 23.08.2024, granting liberty to move an application under the proviso to Section 126 (2) CrPC within two weeks, with a direction to consider delay liberally since the RPFAM had remained pending since 2009.

(iv) Pursuant to the High Court’s liberty, the husband filed a petition before the Family Court (described as u/s 144 BNSS) numbered as CRP No. 157 of 2024, seeking to set aside/recall the ex parte order dated 20.08.2008 in CRP No. 133/2007.

(v) By order dated 03.12.2025 in CRP No. 157/2024, the Family Court allowed restoration, recalled the ex parte order dated 20.08.2008, restored CRP No. 133/2007 to file, imposed cost of Rs.1,000 on the husband payable to the wife, directed the husband to take steps for day-to-day disposal without adjournments, and dropped Criminal Execution Proceeding No. 491/2008.

(vi) There are parallel/connected criminal litigations referred to in the pleadings: the husband alleges a case where the wife was convicted in S.T. Case No. 293/2005 (arising from Tangi P.S. Case No. 54/2004 / G.R. Case No. 409/2004) under Sections including 307/326/506/34 IPC, and the wife states that her conviction is under challenge in CRLA No. 159 of 2006 and is still pending, hence not final.

(vii) After the restoration order dated 03.12.2025, the husband filed the present CRLMC No. 5526 of 2025 (filed on 17.12.2025) seeking quashing of the maintenance proceeding; the wife alleges this is part of a pattern to delay CRP No. 133/2007.

II. PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.

(i) The maintenance order dated 20.08.2008 in CRP No. 133/2007 was obtained ex parte, allegedly without reasonable opportunity to the husband to contest, and therefore should not operate against him.

(ii) The husband asserts that the wife attempted to kill him by pouring kerosene and setting him on fire with her alleged paramour, resulting in 35-40% burn injuries and present disability, and that this led to her conviction in S.T. Case No. 293/2005 under 307/326/506/34 IPC (as pleaded), sentenced to imprisonment.

(iii) The husband’s case is that a wife who is convicted for attempting to murder her husband and who allegedly fled with a paramour cannot claim maintenance, and he invokes Section 125 (4) CrPC