THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 935/2025 ORDER: Criminal Revision Case has been preferred under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) feeling aggrieved by ex-parte order of granting maintenance to Respondent No.2, vide order dated 08.11.2024 in M.C.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 2. Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner while reiterating the grounds of the Revision, argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge is illegal, irregular, and liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. The Petitioner was not served with notice at his correct workplace address, which is the Kalyan Nagar campus of CMR University, where he has been employed since 01.09.2023. The notice was erroneously sent to the main campus, where the Petitioner has never worked, thereby vitiating the service of process. It is further submitted that the Petitioner became aware of the proceedings only upon the filing of the arrears petition, when the security personnel at the main campus handed over the notice to the administrative staff, who then circulated it among various campuses. Upon inquiry with his Counsel, the Petitioner was informed that an ex-parte order had been passed against him. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the proceedings in May 2025, the Petitioner took prompt steps to file a petition to set aside the ex- parte order along with a delay condonation petition and vakalatnama. However, these were returned on the ground that permission to engage Counsel had not 2 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 been sought. When the permission petition was filed, it too was returned with an endorsement stating that the main MC was closed. Consequently, all subsequent filings, including the counter, were returned without adjudication, thereby denying the Petitioner a fair opportunity to contest the matter. 3. The Petitioner submits that the repeated return of his applications, including the permission petition, set aside petition, and delay petition, without any speaking order or justification, amounts to procedural impropriety and has effectively barred him from accessing justice. This conduct is arbitrary and prejudicial to the Petitioner’s rights. The Petitioner is unable to comprehend why his application to engage Counsel was returned without reason, especially when the Respondent No.2 was permitted to engage legal representation. This differential treatment is unjust and indicative of bias. 4. The Petitioner further submits that he was not served with notice at his correct address and had no knowledge of the proceedings. The ex-parte order granting maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month is wholly disproportionate, considering the Petitioner’s monthly salary is Rs.60,000/-, out of which Rs.22,142/- is deducted towards bank loan repayment. The order, therefore, imposes an unreasonable financial burden and is liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent No.2 merely averred that the petitioner earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month without furnishing any proof. In the absence of substantiating evidence, the grant of maintenance 3 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 based on such unverified claims is unsustainable and contrary to settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.2 is a well- qualified individual, having completed her M.Sc. and B.Ed., and is capable of earning her livelihood. The learned Trial Judge failed to consider that an educated spouse cannot remain idle and wholly dependent on maintenance, especially when there are no children from the marriage and the marital relationship is not disputed. 5. The Petitioner also submits that the mobile number mentioned in the notice dated 06.08.2024 does not belong to him. He discovered this discrepancy only after obtaining certified copies, which he was compelled to do as a party-in-person due to denial of permission to engage Counsel. The repeated return of the Petitioner’s applications without adjudication and without assigning reasons reflects a biased approach and raises serious apprehensions in the mind of the Petitioner regarding the impartiality of the proceedings. The Petitioner fears that he may not receive fair treatment before the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge entertained the arrears petition in CrI.M.P.No.17 of 2025 and proceeded to issue process for arrest warrant without considering the Petitioner’s pending applications. 6. On the other hand, Ms. P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would argue that the learned Trial Court had rightly appreciated the material available. There was no flagrant miscarriage of justice. There were no 4 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 perverse findings. There was no irregularity let alone material irregularity. The order impugned is not vitiated by manifest error of law or procedure which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order doesn’t suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, it is urged to dismiss the criminal revision case. 7. Sri Guttapalem Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 contended that at the time of marriage, the Respondent No.2’s parents provided a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash and gifted 14 tulas of gold ornaments to the Petitioner and his parents. Additionally, they hosted a reception and dinner at considerable expense. Initially, the Petitioner treated Respondent No.2 cordially; however, over time, he, along with his parents Nagaiah and Obulamma, and sisters-in-law Vinjaya Kumari, Nagalakshmi, Nagarathna, and her husband Chandranna, began demanding an additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Respondent No.2’s family. 8. It is contended further that despite the Respondent No.2’s repeated pleas and explanations that her parents had already fulfilled substantial dowry obligations, the Petitioner and his family subjected her to physical and verbal abuse, denied her basic necessities, and treated her inhumanely. In 2017, following severe harassment and assault, the Respondent No.2 was forcibly evicted from the matrimonial home. Upon mediation, she rejoined the Petitioner, but the ill-treatment persisted. 5 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 9. It is furthermore contended that subsequently, her parents convened a panchayat with community elders, urging the Petitioner to resume marital harmony, but he remained defiant. The Respondent No.2 lodged a criminal complaint at I Town U/G Police Station, Kadapa, which was registered as Crime No.215/2023 under Sections 498-A read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A Domestic Violence Case has also been initiated. 10. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has wilfully neglected and refused to maintain the Respondent No.2 since March 2023. He is employed as an Assistant Professor at CMR University, Bangalore, earning approximately Rs.1,50,000/- per month, and possesses substantial movable and immovable assets, including residential properties, agricultural lands, gold, and bank deposits, with an estimated monthly income of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Petitioner has sufficient means and is legally bound to provide maintenance to the Respondent No.2. 11. Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused the entire record. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the order in M.C.No.45 of 2024 dated 08.11.2024, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding or judgment, and there are any material irregularities? And to what relief?” 6 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 13. The Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are legally wedded spouses, having solemnized their marriage on 30.04.2015 at Saint Mary’s Cathedral Church, Mariyapuram, Kadapa, in accordance with Christian rites and customs. Post-marriage, the parties cohabited at the Petitioner’s residence until March 2023. No children were born out of the said wedlock. The Respondent No.2 further avers that her in-laws and sisters-in-law forcibly took possession of her gold ornaments (approximately 12 tulas), pledged them at DCC Bank, Kadapa, and misappropriated the proceeds. On 18.03.2023, she was again assaulted by her in-laws, and upon being summoned, the Petitioner physically attacked her with a pestle, causing a bleeding injury to her left arm, and issued threats to her life. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha1, at para graph No.111 held as under: “111. The rationale of granting maintenance from the date of application finds its roots in the object of enacting maintenance legislations, so as to enable the wife to overcome the financial crunch which occurs on separation from the husband. Financial constraints of a dependent spouse hamper their capacity to be effectively represented before the court. In order to prevent a dependant from being reduced to destitution, it is necessary that maintenance is awarded from the date on which the application for maintenance is filed before the court concerned.” 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai2, at paragraph No.6 it is held as under: “6. The object of the maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 2 (2008) 2 SCC 316 7 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support. The phrase “unable to maintain herself” in the instant case would mean that means available to the deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself the efforts made by the wife after desertion to survive somehow. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 508 : AIR 1978 SC 1807] falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 787 : (2005) 2 Supreme 503].” 16. Upon careful consideration of the material on record and the submissions advanced by both parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned ex-parte order passed by the learned Trial Judge suffers from procedural irregularities and is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. It is evident that the Petitioner was not duly served with notice at his correct workplace address, namely the Kalyan Nagar campus of CMR University, where he has been employed since 01.09.2023. The notice was erroneously dispatched to the main campus, where the Petitioner has never served, thereby vitiating the service of process. The Petitioner came to know of the proceedings only upon the filing of the arrears petition, and not through any valid or timely service of notice. This lapse in service constitutes a material defect and undermines the principles of natural justice. 17. Further, the Petitioner made efforts to contest the proceedings upon gaining knowledge in May 2025. He filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte 8 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 order, along with a delay condonation petition and vakalatnama. However, these were returned without adjudication, citing procedural grounds such as lack of permission to engage counsel and closure of the main MC. The repeated return of applications without any speaking order or justification amounts to procedural impropriety and has effectively denied the Petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard. 18. The learned Trial Court, while granting maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month, failed to ascertain the actual income of the Petitioner. The order was passed solely on the averments of the Respondent No.2, who claimed that the Petitioner earns Rs.1,50,000/- per month, without there being any documentary proof. In contrast, the Petitioner has placed on record that his monthly salary is Rs.60,000/-, with deductions of Rs.22,142/- towards bank loan repayment. The learned Trial Court did not undertake any inquiry or verification of these claims, thereby rendering the quantum of maintenance arbitrary and unsustainable. 19. In light of the above, this Court finds that the ex-parte order was passed without proper service of notice, sans affording the Petitioner sufficient opportunity to contest, and without adequate inquiry into the financial capacity of the parties. If one more fair opportunity of being heard is provided for the Petitioner before the learned Trial Judge, interest of justice would be sub- served for both the parties. Accordingly, the ex-parte order dated 08.11.2024 9 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa is liable to be set aside. 20. However, considering the fact that the Respondent No.2 needs some maintenance as she asserted that she is unable to maintain herself despite she is sufficiently educated, this Court deems it appropriate to grant interim monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to Respondent No.2 while setting aside the ex-parte order. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Judge for fresh consideration on merits. The learned Trial Judge shall make endeavour to pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity of hearing for both the parties and upon considering material available on record, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, until such time the Petitioner shall pay interim maintenance as mentioned above without fail every month. 21. In the result, the ex-parte order dated 08.11.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa granting Rs.50,000/- maintenance to Respondent No.2 is reduced to Rs.15,000/- towards interim monthly maintenance until passing of maintenance order by the learned Trial Judge after conducting inquiry by hearing both sides and passing a permanent order of maintenance in M.C.No.45 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa. 10 Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.935 of 2025 15.09.2025 22. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dt: 15.09.2025 VTS