Substantial justice outweighs technicalities in maintenance proceedings; right to file reply restored on costs.

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 16.05.2003 according to Hindu rites and customs; the respondent resided with the petitioner for approximately one month before leaving the matrimonial home

The petitioner obtained a decree of divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of desertion, granted by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur on 01.11.2014, with recorded findings that the respondent had deserted the petitioner without sufficient reason

Nearly nine years after the decree, the respondent instituted maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS) before the Family Court, Jabalpur, along with an application for interim maintenance

The petitioner alleged that the respondent, in her affidavit, deliberately suppressed the fact that she owns one acre of irrigated agricultural land from which she earns her livelihood

The petitioner consequently filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 BNSS, alleging the filing of a false affidavit amounting to offences under Sections 191 and 193 IPC (now Sections 227 and 229 BNSS)

On 08.05.2026, the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, by the impugned order, closed the petitioner's right to file a reply despite his request for consideration of the Section 340 application and for one opportunity to file his reply

The petitioner assailed this order by a petition under Section 528 BNSS

1. Whether the Family Court was justified in closing the petitioner's right to file a reply in maintenance proceedings on technical grounds, or whether one final opportunity to file the reply ought to be granted in the interest of substantial justice

2. Whether denial of the right to file a reply in summary maintenance proceedings, at a stage prior to the recording of evidence, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the successor provision to the inherent powers of the High Court

In the context of maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (now Section 144 BNSS), the Court affirmed the settled principle that such proceedings are summary in nature and ought to be decided on merits after affording adequate opportunity to both parties

The foundational doctrine applied was that the object of procedural law is to facilitate adjudication on merits and not to foreclose a party's defence on technical grounds; further, an order closing the right to file a reply has the effect of seriously prejudicing a party's defence, and the interests of substantial justice may warrant indulgence subject to strict conditions, including compensatory costs

Applying the principle that procedure is the handmaid of justice, the Court balanced two competing considerations: while the petitioner could not be permitted to prolong the proceedings indefinitely, foreclosing his defence on technical grounds would defeat merits-based adjudication

The Court noted two decisive factual circumstances: first, the maintenance proceedings had not yet reached the stage of evidence, so granting an opportunity to file a reply would not unsettle any advanced stage of trial; second, the petitioner sought only a single opportunity to place his defence on record, particularly in light of his pending Section 340 Cr.P.C. application alleging suppression of income by the respondent

The Court reasoned that any inconvenience to the respondent occasioned by the delay could be adequately compensated by an imposition of costs

Given that closure of the right to reply would seriously prejudice the petitioner's defence in summary maintenance proceedings—where denial of such opportunity offends the principles of natural justice—the Court concluded that substantial justice required granting one final opportunity hedged with strict, self-executing conditions

The petitioner was granted one last and final opportunity to file his reply before the Family Court within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, subject to payment of costs of ₹5,000/- to the respondent on or before the date of filing of the reply

The Court issued a strict conditional direction: if the petitioner fails to file the reply within the stipulated period or fails to deposit the costs, the order shall automatically stand recalled without any further reference to the High Court, and the Family Court's order closing the petitioner's right to file a reply shall revive