The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a reply filed to an interim maintenance application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) cannot be treated as a substitute for the reply to the main maintenance petition. This ruling reinforces the fundamental right to a fair hearing in quasi-civil proceedings, ensuring that parties are not deprived of the opportunity to present their case on distinct legal issues.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Sania Behna, filed a petition under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the Family Court, Jabalpur, seeking maintenance against the petitioner, Pervez Zamal. Simultaneously, she filed an application for interim maintenance under the same provision. The petitioner filed a reply on 25.08.2025, which was explicitly titled and addressed as a response to the interim maintenance application. The Family Court accepted this reply as such and passed an order on 28.08.2025 granting interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month, effective from 06.08.2024.
Key Facts
- The main maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS was filed on 06.08.2024.
- The interim maintenance application was filed on the same date.
- The petitioner filed a reply on 25.08.2025, which referenced only the interim application and contained no substantive response to the claims in the main petition.
- On 10.12.2025, the petitioner filed a separate reply to the main application.
- The Family Court rejected this reply on 10.12.2025, holding that a reply had already been filed on 25.08.2025.
- On 04.02.2026, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment to the 25.08.2025 reply; this was dismissed on the ground that the facts were known at the time of filing.
Procedural History
- 06.08.2024: Main maintenance petition and interim maintenance application filed under Section 144 BNSS.
- 25.08.2025: Petitioner files reply titled as response to interim maintenance application.
- 28.08.2025: Family Court grants interim maintenance of Rs. 30,000/month from 06.08.2024.
- 10.12.2025: Petitioner files reply to main application; rejected by Family Court.
- 04.02.2026: Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of 25.08.2025 reply dismissed.
- 12.03.2026: Writ petition filed before Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the orders dated 10.12.2025 and 04.02.2026, permission to file the reply to the main application, and direction to treat the 10.12.2025 reply as validly filed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a reply filed to an interim maintenance application under Section 144 of BNSS, 2023 can be treated as the reply to the main maintenance petition, and whether the Family Court erred in rejecting a subsequent reply filed specifically for the main application.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the reply filed on 25.08.2025 was exclusively directed to the interim maintenance application and contained no response to the allegations in the main petition. He contended that natural justice requires a separate opportunity to respond to distinct claims, and that Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is applicable in quasi-civil proceedings under BNSS Section 144. He relied on the principle that procedural fairness must prevail even in maintenance proceedings.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel argued that proceedings under Section 144 BNSS are criminal in nature and therefore governed by strict procedural rules excluding CPC provisions. He maintained that the 25.08.2025 reply was intended to cover both interim and main applications, and that allowing a second reply would cause delay and prejudice to the respondent.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the record and found that the reply dated 25.08.2025 was clearly framed as a response to the interim maintenance application. The Family Court itself treated it as such by passing an order on 28.08.2025 on interim maintenance alone. The Court observed that the main petition remained unaddressed, and the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to respond to its specific allegations.
"It appears that the Family Court has committed error in holding that the reply of the main application has already been filed and the petitioner cannot be permitted to file the second reply of main application."
The Court emphasized that Section 144 BNSS proceedings, while having criminal overtones, are fundamentally quasi-civil in nature, especially concerning the determination of maintenance obligations. Therefore, the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are applicable. The Family Court’s refusal to accept the 10.12.2025 reply amounted to a denial of fair hearing, which is impermissible.
The Court further held that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the 25.08.2025 reply was rightly rejected, as that reply pertained to a concluded interim application and could not be retrospectively altered to cover the main petition.
The Verdict
The petition was partly allowed. The order dated 10.12.2025 rejecting the reply to the main application was set aside. The reply filed on 10.12.2025 was directed to be taken on record and treated as the formal reply to the main maintenance petition under Section 144 BNSS. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed as infructuous. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Reply to Interim Application Cannot Substitute Reply to Main Petition
- Practitioners must file separate, distinct replies for interim and main applications under BNSS Section 144.
- Courts cannot presume that a reply to one application suffices for another, even if filed by the same party.
- Failure to provide a separate reply to the main petition violates natural justice and renders the proceeding vulnerable to challenge.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Applies in Maintenance Proceedings
- Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is applicable in maintenance proceedings under BNSS Section 144, as they are quasi-civil.
- Amendments to pleadings are permissible if they relate to facts known at the time of filing, but cannot be used to convert a reply to one application into a reply to another.
- Courts must distinguish between procedural flexibility and substantive misjoinder of pleadings.
Procedural Errors in Family Courts Are Grounds for Writ Relief
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable where procedural fairness is denied in Family Court proceedings.
- Even minor procedural lapses, such as non-acceptance of a reply, can be remedied by High Courts if they affect substantive rights.
- Practitioners should promptly file writ petitions where Family Courts misapply procedural rules, especially when rights to be heard are compromised.
