IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1531-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.11.2025 MUNISH BAJAJ ...PETITIONER VERSUS NEHA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.

1. Order dated 08.09.2025 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Camp Court at Khanna, in MNT125/16/2022 titled ‘Neha Vs. Munish Bajaj etc', vide which petitioner’s right to cross-examine witnesses was curtailed, has been challenged by way of this revision petition.

2. For clarity and better appreciation, the parties shall be referred to as husband and wife.

3. Learned counsel for the husband submits that out of the total arrears, petitioner had already paid Rs.2,13,500/- and only Rs.73,500/- was outstanding which also he was prepared to pay in installments. He further submits that after the order granting maintenance was passed on 15.12.2023, he had been regularly making payments w.e.f. 19.04.2024. On account of loss in business and health issues, he was unable to pay the sum of Rs.73,500/- in lump sum. The Court, ignoring his past conduct and financial constraints, illegally passed the order curtailing right of cross-examination. The order greatly prejudiced the rights of the husband and could not sustain in law.

4. Facts relevant for disposal of the petition are that the parties were married on 31.01.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, a female child was born on 06.06.2016. Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife claiming maintenance allowance. On 15.12.2023, the husband was directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month to the wife, Rs.2000/- per month for the child had already been awarded. From 19.04.2024 onwards, the husband made payments of 10,000/20,000/7,000/- and as evident from the impugned order, a sum of Rs.2,13,500/- was paid up. Rs.73,500/- was outstanding, which the husband submits could not be paid on account of financial difficulties.

5. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the landmark judgment titled Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, has observed that striking off the defence of the respondent is an order which ought to be passed in the last resort, if the Courts find default to be willful and contumacious, particularly to a dependent unemployed wife and minor children. Thus, striking of defence of the respondent or curtailing the right to cross examine is not a course which is to be adopted in routine. In the case in hand, learned Family Court, without considering the fact that from 19.04.2024 onwards every month, petitioner was making payments as per his financial capacity, hastily passed the impugned order, in casual manner. A Coordinate Bench in Vaneet Singla Vs. Nidhi Gupta and Others 2024(4) RCR(Criminal) 655 has ruled that the right to plead a defence against any accusation or claim laid against a person, being his cherished legal right to a legal remedy as well as a principle of natural justice, ought not to be tinkered with casually and lightly, without there being willful and contumacious neglect on part of that person qua compliance of the order(s) passed by the Court.

6. There is no finding recorded by learned Family Court that the lapse of husband to pay the entire arrears of interim maintenance was willful and deliberate. Thus, without affording the husband a reasonable opportunity to clear the arrears of interim maintenance allowance, order curtailing his right of cross examination and therefore his defence, cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, order dated 08.09.2025 is set aside. In order to balance the equities, it would be subject to payment of maintenance allowance of Rs.35,000/- within 15 days from today. After payment being made, learned Family Court shall give due and proper opportunity to the husband to cross examine the witnesses produced by the wife and to make payment of the remaining arrears, in reasonable monthly installments.

8. This order is being passed with