IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

ON THE 5^th OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4757 of 2025

SMT. ANISHA TIWARI AND OTHERS

Versus

DR. K.K. TIWARI

Appearance:

Shri Jai Shukla - Advocate for the applicants.

ORDER Order IX Rule 9 CPC was filed seeking restoration of the Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. proceedings, which was also dismissed by the Family Court vide the impugned order.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure/ 528 of Bharatiye Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 invoking the inherent powers of this Court to challenge the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, District Shahdol, (M.P.) whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking restoration of her application under

Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are

that the petitioner–wife had earlier obtained an order of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Alleging non-payment of maintenance, she filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before the Family Court. The said application came to be dismissed for default on account of non-appearance of the petitioner. Subsequently, an application under

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Family Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach. It is contended that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are of a beneficial and summary nature, intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution, and therefore dismissal of an execution application for default defeats the very object of the provision. It is further submitted that procedural law ought not to be applied in a manner so as to frustrate substantive rights of a deserted wife.

4. It is well settled that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-criminal and welfare-oriented in nature. An application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. is in the nature of execution of a maintenance order. Dismissal of such an application for default does not adjudicate the rights of the parties on merits.

5. The Family Court, while dismissing the restoration application, failed to appreciate that procedural provisions of the CPC are to be applied to proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. only to the extent they advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. The object of maintenance proceedings would be rendered nugatory if a wife is non- suited on technical grounds, particularly when the liability to pay maintenance subsists and arrears remain unpaid.

6. It is also trite that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process of court and to secure the ends of justice. In the facts of the present case, refusal to restore the Section

125(3) application would result in miscarriage of justice.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, District Shahdol, (M.P.) dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 9 CPC is hereby set aside. The application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is restored to its original number. The Family Court is directed to decide the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. on merits, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties, expeditiously.

8. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case regarding arrears of maintenance.

9. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed in the above terms.

(HIMANSHU JOSHI)

JUDGE mn