Dismissal of maintenance application for "no locus standi" due to claimant's absence for cross-examination is legally perverse.

The applicant married respondent no. 2 on May 10, 2007, under Muslim Shariyat, and had two children

The applicant alleged mental and physical harassment over dowry demands, following which the husband performed a second marriage in 2011

The applicant filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 90 of 2013 under Section 125 of the CrPC for maintenance.

Although the respondent-husband was served, he remained absent and failed to file a written statement or cross-examine the applicant

On March 4, 2017, the Family Court dismissed the application on the ground that the applicant failed to prove her case because she was absent for cross-examination, citing a lack of "locus standi"

The applicant moved the High Court in revision against this dismissal.

Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the maintenance application on the grounds of "no locus standi" and failure to prove the case solely due to the applicant's absence during the cross-examination stage when the respondent was also absent

Whether the procedural error of the trial court in discarding evidence and dismissing the claim warranted a remand for fresh adjudication

The court primarily applied Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs the right of wives and children to receive maintenance to prevent vagrancy

It also applied the procedural principle that "locus standi" (the right to bring an action) is legally distinct from the "tendering of evidence" (the process of proving a claim)

Furthermore, the court reinforced the principle that if a respondent remains absent, ex-parte proceedings should be conducted rather than a summary dismissal of the applicant's substantive rights

The High Court found the Family Court’s reasoning "not only illegal but also perverse"

The Court noted that while the applicant had filed an affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief and produced documentary evidence (Exhibits 3, 9, and 10), the Family Court ignored these

The lower court dismissed the case because the applicant was not cross-examined, yet the record showed the respondent-husband himself was absent and his right to cross-examine had been closed

The High Court reasoned that even if the applicant’s evidence was to be discarded for lack of cross-examination, she should have been given a further opportunity to lead evidence, or the court should have proceeded ex-parte

The court specifically criticized the use of the term "no locus standi" to justify dismissal, as the applicant clearly had the standing to sue as a wife

The Court held that the summary dismissal was based on a flawed understanding of procedure and locus standi

The matter was remitted back to the Family Court, Ahmedabad, with directions to restore Criminal Misc. Application No. 90 of 2013 to its original file and decide it afresh after giving both parties a fair opportunity, preferably within six months