Madras HC Rejects Husband’s Bid to Reopen Wife-Daughter Maintenance Case, Citing Delay Despite ₹6.52 Lakh in Interim Payments

The respondents, the petitioner’s wife and minor daughter, sought maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.228 of 2022.

The petitioner was set ex parte on 11 March 2024 and later applied to set aside that order. The Family Court dismissed his application on 23 February 2026.

In revision, he relied on his participation in connected proceedings, his asserted belief that an earlier application to set aside the ex parte order remained pending, and payments of Rs.6,52,892 towards interim maintenance.

He sought an opportunity to contest the maintenance claim on the merits

Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance proceedings, which are intended to secure immediate financial assistance for a wife and minor children unable to maintain themselves.

Such proceedings should not be unnecessarily prolonged, and a litigant must diligently pursue them; the pendency of other proceedings does not, by itself, excuse failure to take timely steps in the main proceeding.

Interim-maintenance payments may be credited but do not automatically entitle a party to have an ex parte order set aside.

In revision, interference is not warranted absent perversity, illegality, or material irregularity.

The Court found that the petitioner knew of the maintenance case, as shown by his earlier challenge to the interim-maintenance order, and rejected his claim that he was unaware of the main proceedings.

His asserted belief that another application was pending did not absolve him of the duty to pursue the case diligently.

Although his payments were relevant and were to receive credit, they did not overcome the considerable delay or the unsatisfactory explanation for it.

The Family Court had considered the circumstances, and the petitioner established no ground for revisional interference.

It directed the Family Court to dispose of the maintenance case expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments, and to release the amount deposited towards maintenance arrears to the first respondent in accordance with law.

Amounts already paid towards interim maintenance must be credited when calculating arrears and deciding the main case; the parties’ contentions on the quantum of maintenance remain open.