A Section 125 petition awaiting orders on a memo should not be dismissed for default.

The wife and children filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance.

The wife was examined as PW1 and cross-examined, after which the respondent filed a memo with additional documents.

The petitioners stated that they had no objection to the memo being considered.

The Family Court nevertheless dismissed the maintenance petition for non-prosecution on 27 June 2026.

It later rejected the petitioners’ application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. to restore the case.

The petitioners challenged that rejection in revision.

The High Court noted that, on 3 June 2026, the petitioners had stated they had no objection to the memo and the matter had been posted for orders on it.

1. Whether the Family Court’s rejection of the restoration application was justified when the maintenance petition had been dismissed for default after the petitioners had completed their evidence and stated that they had no objection to the respondent’s memo.

2. Whether the maintenance petition should be restored for disposal on its merits.

The proceeding arose under Section 125 Cr.P.C., under which the petitioners sought maintenance, and the restoration application was made under Section 126 Cr.P.C.

The revision was brought under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with the revisional provisions identified in the petition.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a maintenance petition should not be dismissed for non-prosecution where the record shows that the petitioners had completed their evidence and the matter was awaiting consideration of a memo; the case should instead be considered on its merits.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered the proceedings before the Family Court, particularly the petitioners’ completed evidence and their statement that they had no objection to the respondent’s memo.

Since the matter had been posted for orders on that memo, dismissing the entire maintenance petition for default without proceeding on the memo was, in the High Court’s view, a patent illegality.

The Family Court’s reasons concerning the petitioners’ non-appearance did not justify leaving the petition undecided on its merits in those circumstances.

It directed the Family Court to proceed on the merits and dispose of the matter expeditiously.