Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1924
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD HANEEF @ MOHAMMAD HANEEF MOHIDEEN – Appellant
Versus
MUSHRATH JAHAN – Respondent
RPFC 447/2024
PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, K.JAYESH, MOHANKUMAR, VANDANA MENON, VIMAL VIJAY, VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing a party to contest an exparte maintenance order to ensure fairness, even if prior notice was refused.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Maintenance - The respondent filed for maintenance, and the Family Court granted Rs.10,000/- monthly as per order dated 12.02.2024. The petitioner, absent due to refusal of notice, sought to contest the exparte order. The court allowed the petitioner to contest on merits. (Paras 2, 4)
(B) Exparte Orders - The court emphasized the importance of allowing a party to contest an exparte order, provided conditions are met for fairness in proceedings. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, husband of the respondent, was absent in MC No.132 of 2023 due to non-receipt of notice, leading to an exparte maintenance order. The Family Court dismissed the petitions to set aside the order.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the Family Court's order, allowing the petitioner to contest the case on the condition of depositing Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner’s absence was willful and the implications of the exparte order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that despite the petitioner’s refusal to accept notice, the exparte order should be set aside to allow a fair hearing, emphasizing the right to contest.
Result: The common order was set aside, allowing the petitioner to contest the case.
ORDER
This Revision Petition has been orders in MC No.132 of 2023 dated 12.02.2024 and CMP No.261 of 2024 and Cr.RPIA No.262 of 2024 in M.C.No.132 of 2023 dated 11.11.2024 on the Kasaragod.
2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. The respondent filed MC No.132 of 2023 before the Family Court claiming maintenance. The petitioner was set exparte. The Family Court allowed MC No.132 of 2023 as per the order dated 12.02.2024, granting a monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent from the date of the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner Cr.RPIA No.262 of 2024 to set aside the exparte order and CMP No.261 of 2024 to condone the delay in petition to set aside exparte order. The Family Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed CMP No.261 of 2024 as well as Cr.RPIA No.262 of 2024.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though notice has been served there is no appearance for the respondent.
4. According to the petitioner, he was not served with any notice in the MC proceedings and hence his non appearance before the Family Court was not willful. The Family Court veri issued by the Court to the petitioner. It was found that the petitioner refused to accept the notice. Hence, it cannot be said that the absence was unintentional as rightly held by the Family Court. However, since, the order in MC dated 12.02.2024 is an exparte one, I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to contest the case on merits. Hence, the following order is passed;
I. The common order passed by the Family Court in CMP No.261 of 2024 and Cr.RPIA No.262 of 2024 in MC No.132 of 2023 dated 11.11.2024 is hereby set aside.
II. CMP No.261 of 2024 as well as Crl.RPIA No.262 of 2024 are hereby allowed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance at the Family Court within a period of two weeks.
III. If the amount is deposited as above, the Family Court shall dispose of MC No.132 of 2023 in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence.
IV. If the amount is not deposited as above, the dismissal of CMP No.261 of 2024 and Cr.RPIA No.262 of 2024 shall stand confirmed.
