IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that proper service of notice is essential in maintenance proceedings, and the limitation period for setting aside ex-parte orders begins upon acquiring knowledge of such orders.

Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125, 126, 62, 68 of Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to proper service procedures and the implications of knowledge regarding ex-parte orders in maintenance cases, ultimately allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner faced an ex-parte order in a maintenance case filed by his wife and daughter. He claimed ignorance of the proceedings until he discovered them through a transfer order, leading him to seek to set aside the ex-parte order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Family Court failed to comply with the service provisions of the Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner had not been properly notified of the proceedings, thus allowing his application to set aside the ex-parte order.
Issues: Whether the Family Court properly served notice to the petitioner and whether the application to set aside the ex-parte order was time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the starting point for limitation to challenge an ex-parte order is when the party acquires knowledge of the order, not the date of the order itself.
Result: The criminal revision petition is allowed, and the ex-parte order is set aside, allowing the petitioner to participate in the maintenance proceedings.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points from the Judgment

Subject: Family Law - Maintenance Proceedings under Sections 125, 126 Cr.P.C. (!) [judgement_subject]

Core Principle: Proper service of notice is essential in maintenance proceedings; limitation for setting aside ex-parte orders runs from the date the party acquires knowledge of the order, not the date of the order itself. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Facts: - Respondent No.1 (wife) and Respondent No.2 (minor daughter) filed maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against petitioner (husband/father), pending as Case No. MNT-13-2022 before Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari. (!) - Family Court proceeded ex-parte against petitioner on 12.05.2022, noting registered cover notice returned with refusal report, but without detailing refusal or complying with service procedures. (!) (!) - Petitioner became aware of proceedings and ex-parte order on 05.12.2022 upon obtaining online copy of this Court's transfer order (TA-1124-2022) in his related HMA case (No. HMA/1180/2021), which mentioned the maintenance case fixed for 07.12.2022. (!) - Petitioner filed application on 07.12.2022 to set aside ex-parte order dated 12.05.2022. (!) (!) - Respondents denied petitioner's lack of knowledge, claiming due service. (!)

Issues: - Whether Family Court properly served notice on petitioner under Cr.P.C. provisions. (!) - Whether application to set aside ex-parte order was time-barred (filed ~7 months after ex-parte order but 2 days after knowledge). (!) (!)

Court's Findings: - Family Court failed to comply with Sections 62 and 68 Cr.P.C. for summons service; no service report details, no recorded satisfaction under proviso to Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. that petitioner was wilfully avoiding service or neglecting attendance. (!) - Limitation period for setting aside ex-parte maintenance order under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. commences from date of knowledge of the order; petitioner's application filed promptly within 2 days of knowledge on 05.12.2022, hence not time-barred. No contrary evidence from respondents. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Respondents failed to disprove petitioner's knowledge timeline with credible material. (!)

Ratio Decidendi: Ex-parte proceedings in maintenance cases require strict adherence to Cr.P.C. service provisions (Sections 62, 68, 126(2)); absence of proper service and recorded satisfaction invalidates ex-parte order; limitation starts upon acquiring knowledge. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Result: Criminal Revision (F) No. 979 of 2023 allowed; ex-parte order dated 12.05.2022 and dismissal order dated 31.05.2023 set aside; petitioner entitled to participate fully in maintenance proceedings before Family Court, Rewari. (!)

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

Present criminal revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari. Facts relevant for the adjudication of the criminal revision petition are that respondent No.1 being wife and respondent No.2 being minor daughter of the petitioner, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner seeking grant of maintenance. The said petition is pending adjudication in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari bearing Case No.: MNT-13-2022.

2. Vide order dated 12.05.2022 the learned Family Court, taking note of the fact that Registered Cover notice issued to the petitioner were received back with the report of refusal, proceeded against the petitioner ex-parte in the matter.

3. The petitioner vide application dated 07.12.2022 filed before the Family Court, sought setting-aside of the order dated 12.05.2022, whereby he was proceeded against ex-parte in the matter. In the said application it was inter-alia averred that the petitioner had filed a case bearing No.HMA/1180/2021 in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gurugram. When he went to the Family Court Gurugram on 25.11.2022 to attend his said case, he came to know that the same has been transferred to Rewari by this Court on a Transfer Application filed by the respondent No.1. Then he searched and came to know that the respondent had filed a transfer case bearing TA-1124-2022 before this Court. Then the petitioner on 05.12.2022 obtained the copy of transfer order passed by this Court in TA-1124-2022, online from website of this Court. The perusal of the said order further revealed to him that the respondents have filed a case against him under Section 125 Cr.P.C. at Rewari, which was fixed for 07.12.2022. As such he filed the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte order on 07.12.2022 itself.

4. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents to the said application dated 07.12.2022 filed by the petitioner, it was simply denied that the petitioner had no knowledge of the proceedings before the Family Court. It is averred that the petitioner was duly served with the notice in the proceedings.

5. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari vide order dated 31.05.2023 dismissed the application dated 07.12.2022 filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present criminal revision petition.

6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Family Court reveals, that the application filed by the petitioner seeking setting aside, by which he was proceeded against ex-parte, has been dismissed on two counts; Firstly, that notice issued to petitioner herein was received back with report of refusal. Secondly, that he was proceeded against ex-parte on 12.05.2022 and application for setting aside was filed on 07.12.2022, and as such there was delay of more than seven months in filing the said application.

7. After hearing the arguments and perusing the case record carefully I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 31.05.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewari is not sustainable in the facts of the case.

8. Perusal of order dated 12.05.2022 makes it amply clear that the Family Court, proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner in the case after simply noting that Registered Cover notice issued to respondent received back with the report of refusal. The details of such refusal are missing in said order. Moreover, there is total non-compliance of the provisions of Sections 62 and 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Family Court, in effecting service of the summons upon the petitioner. The provisions of Sections 62 and 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be simply ignored. The order passed by Family Court does not even mention whether the procedure for service of summons as enshrined under Section 62 and 68 of the Criminal Procedure was ever adhered to by it, and if so, the service report in terms of provisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document