The court held that imposing costs while recalling an ex-parte maintenance order under Section 145(2) of BNSS is legal and not excessive if the party willfully avoided proceedings and failed in their statutory duty to provide maintenance to the spouse.

1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 7.1.2026 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj in Criminal Misc. Case No. 284 of 2019 whereby the Court concerned has imposed a cost of Rs. 30,000/- upon the revisionist while allowing the recall application.

2. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that revisionist is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and on 8.5.2024 an exparte order under Section 144 of BNSS was passed against him and he moved an application under Section 145(2) of BNSS for recalling the said order dated 8.5.2024 which was although allowed by the Court concerned on 7.1.2026 but with a cost of Rs. 30,000/-. He next submitted that the cost imposed by the Court concerned is highly excessive, therefore, the cost imposed upon revisionist while recalling the order passed under Section 144 of BNSS is bad in law.

4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submitted that an exparte order was passed on 8.5.2024 under Section 144 of BNSS and the revisionist wilfully avoided the proceeding of the case despite service of notice and when the order under Section 144 of BNSS was finally passed against him then he filed a recall application under Section 145(2) of BNSS which was although allowed on 7.1.2026 but with a cost of Rs. 30,000/-. He further submits that imposed cost cannot be said to be highly excessive as revisionist is capable to pay Rs. 30,000/- and as he was not paying any maintenance allowance to the opposite party no. 2, therefore, there is no illegality in imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/-. He next submitted that the order of maintenance was passed on 8.5.2024 and was recalled on 7.1.2026 but in between the revisionist did not pay even a single penny to the opposite party no. 2 as a maintenance pursuant to the order dated 8.5.2024, therefore, there is no illegality in imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- upon revisionist while recalling the order under Section 144 of BNSS.

5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case carefully.

6. Before dealing with the submissions, it is necessary to quote the provisions of Section 145 of BNSS, which are as under :

" 145. Procedure.

(1) Proceedings under section 144 may be taken against any person in any district -

(a) where he is; or

(b) where he or his wife resides; or

(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child; or

(d) where his father or mother resides.

(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his advocate, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases:

Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper

(3) The Court in dealing with application