Procedural fairness in maintenance proceedings mandates granting a reasonable opportunity for participation, especially when ex parte orders are involved due to a party's legitimate constraints.

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. Both Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2024 and Criminal Revision No. 536 of 2024 arise out of proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Respondent–wife before the Family Court, Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.

2. The Respondent–wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC on 06.09.2023, registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 274 of 2023. Summons in the said proceedings were received by the father of the Revisionist on 15.09.2023. The matter was posted for appearance on05.10.2023.

3. The Revisionist is employed as a Constable (Fire) with the CISF and was posted in Tamil Nadu during the relevant period. His case is that he was required to obtain prior permission and leave from his superior officers to appear before the Family Court. The Revisionist applied for such leave, but according to him, the same was not sanctioned, which prevented him from remaining present before the Family Court on 05.10.2023.

4. The Family Court proceeded ex parte against the Revisionist on 05.10.2023 and, thereafter, by judgment and order dated 10.11.2023, allowed the application under Section 125 CrPC, granting maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month to the Respondent–wife.

5. Upon receiving knowledge of the ex parte judgment, the Revisionist moved an application on 28.11.2023 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 360 of 2023, seeking recall of the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023. The said application was dismissed by the Family Court on 31.05.2024.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the Revisionist filed Criminal Revision No. 483 of 2024 before this Court.

7. In the meanwhile, the Respondent–wife initiated recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., registered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 44 of 2024, for recovery of arrears of maintenance awarded by the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023. On 09.07.2024, the Family Court issued a recovery warrant against the Revisionist for Rs. 75,000.

8. The Revisionist thereafter filed Criminal Revision No. 536 of 2024, challenging the ex parte judgment dated 10.11.2023 as well as the recovery warrant dated 09.07.2024. Since the said revision was filed with a delay, an application for condonation of the delay was moved. The delay has been condoned by this Court vide order dated19.08.2025.

9. Both revisions pertain to the same matrimonial parties, arise out of the same maintenance proceedings, and challenge interconnected orders. They are, therefore, heard together and are being decided by this common order.

10. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the Family Court acted in undue haste in proceeding ex parte on 05.10.2023 without ensuring proper service upon the Revisionist, who was posted outside the State and was dependent on formal leave from his Department to appear.

11. It is submitted that no further summons or notice was ever issued to the Revisionist after 05.10.2023, and that the Family Court was aware of his employment with the CISF, which required him to obtain prior sanction of leave before attending court proceedings.

12. Learned counsel submits that the Revisionist had applied for leave but the same was not sanctioned, and therefore, his non- appearance on 05.10.2023 constituted “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 126(2) Cr.PC.

13. The learned counsel argues for Revisionist that the Family Court failed to appreciate the