The background facts which led the High Court to render its decision in the case are as under.
The marriage between the parties was solemnized in 1993, and a daughter and a son were born out of their wedlock. The wife, in 2009, filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC against the husband for grant of maintenance of herself and the children. Despite notice issued to the husband, he failed to appear before the trial court, after which it passed an ex parte order against him.
Parallelly in 2009, the husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the HMA before the Family Court, Hamirpur for restitution of conjugal rights. The fact of maintenance proceedings was not disclosed by the husband to the Hamirpur court. After filing a reply in the said proceedings, the wife subsequently stopped appearing. Later, by virtue of an ex-parte judgment in April 2013, the petition was decreed ex-parte in favour of the husband, and consequently, the wife was directed to join the company of the husband.
Meanwhile, the interim maintenance application of the wife came to be allowed by the trial court and the husband was directed to pay ₹1,300 per month each to the wife and the children. An appeal by the husband was dismissed by the Sessions Court in December 2013. The husband’s appeal before the High Court was also dismissed.
The Family Court, after closing of evidence by the wife, passed a judgment dated in February 2018, rejecting the plea of grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC basis the ex-parte decree under Section 9 of the HMA passed in April 2013. The wife was thus prompted to approach the High Court in appeal.
Source: Barandbench
