Separate challenges to closely timed orders are not abuse of process absent deliberate delay or harassment.

The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The petitioner-husband said he received the application and supporting documents on 24 March 2025 and was unable to prepare his reply, including to the interim-maintenance application, before the Family Court closed his right to reply on 11 April 2025.

The next day, the Family Court awarded the wife interim maintenance of ₹10,000 per month.

The husband challenged the interim-maintenance order in one petition and, three days after filing it, brought this petition challenging closure of his right to reply.

The wife opposed the separate petitions and submitted that the husband had received several opportunities to file his reply.

1. Whether filing separate petitions challenging the order closing the right to reply and the subsequent interim-maintenance order, in the circumstances, amounted to an abuse of process or made the present petition unsustainable.

2. Whether the husband should be restored one opportunity to file his reply, subject to conditions, despite the Family Court having closed that right.

The petition was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, while the judgment also refers to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC; the underlying maintenance proceeding was under Section 125 of the CrPC.

The Court applied the principles that procedural rules should advance justice, that adjudication on the merits is ordinarily preferable to shutting out a defence for procedural default, and that an additional opportunity may be granted where it will not cause serious prejudice to the opposing party.

The wife relied on Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben, Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajnesh v. Neha; the Court considered the cited cases distinguishable on their facts.

The Court found no indication that the husband filed the two petitions separately to harass the wife or delay the proceedings: the challenged orders were made on consecutive days, both petitions were prepared on 4 May 2025, and the second petition was filed only three days after the first.

It therefore held that the separate filings did not, by themselves, establish abuse of process.

Given the husband’s stated willingness to file a reply, the Court concluded that granting one further opportunity would not cause serious prejudice and would enable adjudication on the merits.

It clarified that restoring the opportunity to reply did not stay the interim-maintenance order; the husband remained liable to comply unless a competent court stayed, modified or otherwise interfered with it, and the Family Court was directed to proceed expeditiously.