Dr. Sant Kumar Namdev vs Smt. Laxmi Namdev

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
1 WP-39134-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
th
ON THE 15 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 39134 of 2025
DR. SANT KUMAR NAMDEV
Versus
SMT. LAXMI NAMDEV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
The petitioner is present in person.
Shri Shishir Verma - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
ORDER
The petitioner, appearing in person, has invoked the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the ex-parte maintenance order dated 25.07.2023 passed in
MJCR No.225/2021 by the learned Family Court, Jabalpur and the
subsequent order dated 22.07.2025 passed in MJCR No.1005/2023 and
MJCR No.111/2024 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner
under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking set aside of
the ex-parte maintenance order and the application seeking stay of recovery
proceedings came to be rejected.
2. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the writ petition and argued in
person, is that his marriage with respondent No.1 was solemnized several
years ago and out of the wedlock two sons, namely respondent Nos.2 and 3,
were born. According to him, matrimonial disputes arose owing to alleged
interference by the family members of respondent No.1, particularly her
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
2 WP-39134-2025
brother, respondent No.4. It is contended that several criminal and civil

proceedings came to be instituted between the parties over a period of time.
The petitioner has placed reliance upon various documents annexed with the
petition, including copies of FIRs and judgments passed therein (Annexure-
P/1 and Annexure-P/2), photographs relating to custody and care of the
minor child (Annexure-P/3 and Annexure-P/4), documents pertaining to
family litigation (Annexures-P/6 to P/18), the ex-parte maintenance order
dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure-P/19), the order passed by the Supreme Court
granting bail in Criminal Appeal No.3155/2023 (Annexure-P/20), the
application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure-P/21), proceedings
under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. (Annexure-P/22), stay application and orders
passed thereon (Annexures-P/23 and P/24), and other complaints and
representations filed by him before different authorities.
3. The petitioner submits that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were
initiated by respondent No.1 in the year 2021 seeking maintenance for
herself and two minor children. According to the petitioner, he was never
served with summons in the said proceedings. It is specifically asserted that
the Family Court proceeded ex-parte on the basis of an endorsement of
refusal dated 03.02.2023, whereas on the said date he was lodged in Central
Jail, Satna in connection with a criminal case and, therefore, the alleged
refusal of service was factually impossible. It is his contention that the ex-
parte order dated 25.07.2023 directing payment of maintenance at the rate of
Rs.31,000/- per month was thus passed in violation of principles of natural
justice.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
3 WP-39134-2025
4. The petitioner further submits that he acquired knowledge of the ex-

parte order only on 01.12.2023 and immediately thereafter applied for
certified copies and filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on
18.12.2023 seeking set aside of the ex-parte order. It is contended that the
application was filed within the period prescribed from the date of
knowledge and was supported by documents showing that on the date of
alleged service he was in judicial custody. Despite the same, the learned
Family Court rejected the application and also declined to stay recovery
proceedings, thereby compelling him to approach this Court.
5. The petitioner, appearing in person, has argued that the impugned orders
suffer from manifest arbitrariness and have resulted in denial of an effective
opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that the Family Court failed to
examine the fundamental question as to whether valid service of summons
had ever been effected upon him. Reliance has been placed upon Annexure-
P/20, namely the order of the Supreme Court, to contend that he remained in
custody during the relevant period. It is further submitted that allegations
regarding the merits of the matrimonial dispute, false implication in criminal
cases, earning capacity of respondent No.1 and quantum of maintenance
could only be adjudicated after granting him an opportunity to contest the
proceedings on merits.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-3
opposed the petition and supported the orders passed by the Family Court. It
is submitted that respondent No.1 and the minor children have been deprived
of maintenance for a considerable period and that the petitioner has adopted
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
4 WP-39134-2025
several proceedings merely to delay payment. It is further contended that the

Family Court considered the material available before it and rightly rejected
the application. According to the respondents, no interference is warranted in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. This Court has heard the petitioner appearing in person and learned
counsel for the contesting respondents and has perused the material available
on record.
8. The principal issue which falls for consideration is whether the
application preferred by the petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. deserved
consideration in light of his specific plea that on the date of alleged refusal of
summons he was in judicial custody.
9. A perusal of the impugned ex-parte order dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure-
P/19) reveals that the proceedings were conducted ex-parte on the basis of an
endorsement indicating refusal of service. The record further discloses that in
the application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure-P/21), the
petitioner specifically pleaded that he was lodged in Central Jail, Satna on
the relevant date and therefore could not have refused service. In support of
the said contention, reliance was placed upon judicial records as well as the
order of the Supreme Court annexed as Annexure-P/20.
10. The right to receive notice and an opportunity of hearing before an
adverse order affecting civil rights is passed constitutes a fundamental
component of the principles of natural justice. An order passed ex-parte can
be sustained only when the Court is satisfied that valid and effective service
of notice had been duly effected. Where a litigant raises a bona fide and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
5 WP-39134-2025
substantial dispute regarding service and places material to demonstrate that

he was incapacitated from receiving notice, such plea requires careful
consideration by the Court concerned.
11. In the present case, this Court finds that the plea regarding judicial
custody on the date of alleged refusal goes to the root of the matter. If the
petitioner was indeed confined in jail on 03.02.2023, the correctness of the
endorsement of refusal would become a matter requiring examination on
evidence. The impugned order dated 22.07.2025 does not indicate any
detailed consideration of this crucial aspect. Instead, the application appears
to have been rejected without a comprehensive adjudication of the question
whether sufficient cause existed for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings.
12. This Court is conscious that proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are
intended to provide immediate financial support to the spouse and children
and should not be unnecessarily delayed. At the same time, an order
imposing recurring financial liability ought not to continue without affording
an opportunity of hearing where a substantial dispute regarding service of
notice is raised and supported by prima facie material.
13. The allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No.1,
respondent No.4, various public officials, judicial officers and advocates
involve disputed questions of fact. This Court refrains from expressing any
opinion on the truthfulness or otherwise of such allegations. Likewise, the
merits of the matrimonial dispute, entitlement to maintenance, earning
capacity of the parties and quantum of maintenance are matters which must
be determined by the competent Family Court on the basis of evidence.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
6 WP-39134-2025
14. In the considered opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be

served by affording the petitioner an opportunity to contest the maintenance
proceedings on merits while simultaneously protecting the interests of
respondent No.1 and the minor children.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The order dated
22.07.2025 passed by the learned Family Court in MJCR No.1005/2023 and
connected proceedings is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application
filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. shall stand restored to
the file of the Family Court for fresh consideration.
16. The learned Family Court shall reconsider the application under
Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to
both sides and shall specifically examine the petitioner's plea regarding his
judicial custody on the date of alleged service of summons, along with the
documents relied upon by the parties. The said application shall be decided
by a reasoned order preferably within a period of sixty days from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order.
17. In the event the Family Court comes to the conclusion that the
petitioner was not duly served and sufficient cause existed for his non-
appearance, ex-parte maintenance order dated 25.07.2023 passed in MJCR
No.225/2021 shall stand recalled and the maintenance proceedings shall be
restored to their original stage for adjudication on merits. In such
eventuality, the Family Court shall decide the claim for maintenance afresh
uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
18. Till disposal of the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:42121
7 WP-39134-2025
coercive steps for recovery of arrears pursuant to the ex-parte order dated

25.07.2023 shall be taken against the petitioner. However, in order to
balance equities and safeguard the interests of the minor children, the
petitioner shall continue to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month before
the Family Court commencing from the next month, which amount shall be
disbursed to respondent Nos.1 to 3 subject to final adjudication.
19. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the claims and counter-claims raised by the parties. All questions
regarding entitlement, quantum of maintenance, conduct of parties and other
disputed issues are left open to be decided independently by the Family
Court in accordance with law.
20. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI)
JUDGE
pn

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ NAGLE
Signing time: 25-06-2026
10:31:01