HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
vs
OP (CRIMINAL) 121/2017
Maintenance - Family Law - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 125 - The court emphasized the need for a fair hearing and proper consideration of application to set aside an ex-parte order before initiating coercive processes against a maintenance petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an ex-parte maintenance order issued against him by the Family Court, arguing that he was unable to attend the hearing due to illness. He filed applications to set aside the order and condone the delay but claimed they were not considered.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the necessity of addressing the pending applications to set aside the ex-parte order and confirmed that a fair hearing must occur before any coercive actions take place, imposing a deposit condition for proceeding.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the Family Court adequately considered the petitioner’s applications to set aside the ex-parte maintenance order before initiating enforcement actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that neglecting to address an application to set aside an ex-parte order is improper and that all applications should be evaluated on their merits.
Final Decision: The petitioner must deposit Rs.25,000 and the Family Court should review his applications within three weeks.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.65 of 2015 on the file of the Family Court, Ottapalam. The respondents herein, who are the wife and minor child of the petitioner, had filed the petition under section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'
for brevity) seeking maintenance.
2.By Ext.P1 order dated 18.9.2015, the case was proceeded ex-parte and the petitioner was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per mensem to the 1st respondent and Rs.5,000/- per mensem to the 2nd respondent from the date of filing of the petition.
3. It was the case of the petitioner that he was laid up due to Jaundice and fever. Immediately thereafter the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order along with the application to condone the delay of O.P.(Crl) 121/2017 2
186 days in filing the above application. The grievance of the petitioner is that the above applications, produced as Ext.P2 and P3 have not been considered by the learned Family Court and disposed of till date. It is further contended that without considering the same, coercive proceedings have been initiated against him.
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
5.Having regard to the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. It is evident from the materials that the petitioner has already filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order and also for condoning the delay, which is pending before the Family Court. The applications were filed in the month of May, 2016. I am of the view that the said applications shall be considered subject to appropriate conditions. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court below O.P.(Crl) 121/2017 3 towards accrued arrears within three weeks from today. If the above direction is complied with, the learned Family Court shall consider the applications on its merits within a period of three weeks from the date of deposit of the amount as aforesaid. The amount deposited shall be released to the respondents on application.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.