A maintenance respondent cannot exclude the intervening period by relying on delayed recall of a valid ex parte order.

The respondents, the petitioner’s wife and minor daughter, instituted proceedings under Section 125 CrPC in November 2021, mentioning the petitioner’s permanent address as Village/Post Office Tikkar, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra.

Notice sent by registered post was shown as delivered on 17 June 2022. As the petitioner did not appear, the Family Court proceeded against him ex parte on 20 June 2022.

The petitioner later filed an application stating that he was employed away from Kangra, was unaware of the proceedings, and had learned of the case only in September 2022. He sought recall of the ex parte order.

The application was allowed on 13 May 2024 without objection from the wife.

The Family Court ultimately awarded monthly maintenance of ₹3,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 to the minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition, together with the child’s education and medical expenses, including ₹27,023 towards education expenses.

Whether the petitioner, after having been duly served at his permanent address and proceeded against ex parte, could claim exclusion of the period consumed in deciding his application for recall from the period for which maintenance was payable.

Whether the maintenance and education expenses awarded by the Family Court were legally unsustainable or excessive.

The Court applied Section 125 CrPC, which obligates a person having sufficient means to maintain his wife and minor child unable to maintain themselves.

It relied on the principle that duly addressed and delivered registered notice constitutes valid service, referring to Basant Singh and Another v. Roman Catholic Mission, Civil Appeal No. 6489 of 2002, and the presumption under Order V Rule 19-A CPC.

The Court further applied the principle that a litigant cannot take advantage of his own omission or conduct, particularly where proceedings were initiated at and notice was served upon his correct permanent address.

The Court found that the petitioner’s permanent address in the Section 125 proceedings was the same address disclosed by him in his recall application and in the present revision.

His assertion that he was working at Baddi did not establish that the address supplied by the wife was incorrect, nor did he allege that she knew he was unavailable there and deliberately furnished that address to avoid service.

Since the registered notice had been delivered at the correct permanent address, the Family Court was justified in treating the petitioner as duly served and proceeding ex parte.

The subsequent setting aside of the ex parte order, particularly when allowed without objection from the wife, did not entitle the petitioner to exclude the intervening period from his maintenance liability.

The Court also held that the awards of ₹3,000 to the wife and ₹5,000 to the child, along with education expenses, were modest and could not be considered excessive.

It held that he could not avoid maintenance liability for the period between the ex parte order and the decision on his recall application, as he had been duly served at his permanent address and could not benefit from his own omission.

Finding no perversity or legal infirmity in the Family Court’s order, the Court dismissed the criminal revision and affirmed the direction to pay ₹3,000 per month to the wife, ₹5,000 per month to the minor daughter from the date of filing, and ₹27,023 towards the child’s education expenses, in addition to applicable education and medical charges.