A significant clarification has emerged on the procedural rigidity surrounding maintenance petitions under Section 125 CrPC. The Bombay High Court has underscored that procedural lapses in service of summons, however persistent, cannot override the substantive right to maintenance when a prima facie marital relationship exists and the petitioner demonstrates immediate intent to rectify the defect.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Mangala W/o Raju Devre, sought maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after allegedly being abandoned by her husband of 38 years. She claimed she was denied basic necessities including food and shelter, compelling her to file a petition in 2022 - nearly four decades after their alleged marriage in 1984. The respondent contested not only the claim for maintenance but also the very existence of a legally recognized marriage.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- October 6, 2022: Summons issued to the respondent
- May 19, 2023: Case transferred between courts within the Family Court system
- April 19, 2025 (morning): Petition dismissed sua sponte for "want of steps" - specifically, failure to serve summons despite multiple attempts over two years
- April 19, 2025 (afternoon): Applicant filed Application Exhibit 22 for restoration, same day
- April 19, 2025 (same day): Family Court rejected restoration, citing petitioner’s "lack of interest" in locating respondent’s address
Relief Sought
The applicant sought setting aside of the dismissal order and restoration of her maintenance petition, arguing that the dismissal was mechanical and ignored her immediate attempt to cure the defect.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC can be dismissed for non-service of summons when the petitioner has prima facie established a marital relationship and seeks restoration on the very day of dismissal.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that the Family Court’s dismissal was procedurally unjust and substantively erroneous. The petitioner had filed for restoration within hours of dismissal, demonstrating active intent to prosecute the claim. Reliance was placed on K. Srinivas v. K. Sujatha to assert that Section 125 is a remedial provision meant to prevent destitution, and procedural technicalities must yield to substantive justice. The failure to serve summons was attributed to the respondent’s deliberate concealment of address, not petitioner’s negligence.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that the petitioner’s conduct over two years - filing repeated applications for reissuance of summons without ever furnishing a verifiable address - demonstrated lack of bona fides. Citing Rajesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, it was argued that courts must not entertain stale claims where the petitioner shows no diligence. The absence of any documentary proof of marriage further undermined the petition’s credibility.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of Section 125 CrPC as a social welfare provision designed to prevent vagrancy and destitution of dependents. It noted that while procedural compliance is essential, rigid application without regard to context defeats the statute’s purpose. The Court observed that the petitioner had not merely delayed; she had acted promptly upon learning of dismissal.
"The dismissal of the petition for want of steps, followed by immediate application for restoration on the same day, cannot be treated as a case of laches or abandonment. The Family Court ought to have considered the prima facie case of marriage and the petitioner’s conduct in context."
The Court distinguished cases where petitioners had remained inactive for years without any corrective action. Here, the petitioner’s conduct was reactive, not negligent. The Court emphasized that the burden to prove non-marriage lay with the respondent, and the absence of documentary proof did not negate the petitioner’s oral testimony, especially where no counter-evidence was adduced.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the Family Court’s order dismissing the maintenance petition and directed that the petition be restored, subject to the petitioner furnishing the respondent’s correct address within two weeks. Failure to do so would permit the Family Court to proceed as it deems fit.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Restoration on Same Day Is Not Laches
- Practitioners must immediately file restoration applications upon dismissal for non-service of summons
- Delay of hours, not months, does not constitute laches under Section 125 CrPC
- Courts must distinguish between genuine attempts to serve and deliberate evasion by respondents
Prima Facie Marriage Sufficient to Proceed
- Oral testimony of cohabitation and social recognition can sustain a Section 125 petition even without marriage certificates
- Respondents challenging marital status bear the burden of disproving it
- Courts must not dismiss petitions at threshold without examining the totality of circumstances
Procedural Flexibility in Maintenance Matters
- Family Courts must adopt a liberal approach to procedural compliance in maintenance cases
- Technical dismissals should be avoided where the petitioner demonstrates corrective intent
- The principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit (no one shall be prejudiced by the act of the court) applies strongly in welfare statutes
