Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Under Section 144 BNSS Must Be Challenged Before Family Court First, Direct Revision Not Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

"Against the ex-parte order passed under Section 144 B.N.S.S., the jurisdiction is vested in the Judicial Magistrate or the Family Court to recall the order under Section 145(2) B.N.S.S." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, held that an ex-parte maintenance order passed under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) cannot be directly challenged through a criminal revision before the High Court.

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed that the aggrieved party must first exhaust the statutory alternative remedy of seeking a recall of the ex-parte order before the trial court itself under Section 145(2) of the BNSS.

Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Against Retired Air Force Personnel

The revisionist, a retired Air Force personnel, was directed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to his wife. This order was passed ex-parte on August 20, 2025, after the husband failed to appear before the trial court despite the due service of notice. Instead of approaching the Family Court to set aside the ex-parte order, the husband directly filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court along with an application for condonation of delay.

Maintainability Of Direct Revision Before High Court

The primary question before the court was whether a criminal revision is maintainable before the High Court directly against an ex-parte maintenance order passed under Section 144 of the BNSS. The court was also called upon to determine the proper procedural hierarchy for challenging such ex-parte orders under the new criminal procedural code and the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Statutory Remedy Under Section 145(2) BNSS Must Be Exhausted

Delving into the procedural framework of the BNSS, the court noted that the revisionist bypassed the established legal procedure by directly approaching the High Court. The bench observed that when a maintenance order is passed ex-parte after due service of notice, the law provides a specific, efficacious, and alternative remedy. Under Section 145(2) of the BNSS, which corresponds to Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a party can move an application before the trial court to set aside the ex-parte proceedings by showing sufficient cause for their non-appearance. The court emphasized that bypassing this statutory mechanism renders the revision petition non-maintainable.

"the revisionist has an efficacious and alternative remedy to move an appropriate application under Section 145(2) of the B.N.S.S. before the trial court for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings and for seeking an opportunity to contest the case on merits."

Proper Hierarchy Of Appeal And Revision

The court further clarified the jurisdictional hierarchy that must be followed in such maintenance disputes. It explained that the power to recall an ex-parte order strictly vests in the Judicial Magistrate or the Family Court that passed the initial order. It is only after this remedy is exhausted, and an order is subsequently passed on the Section 145(2) application, that an aggrieved party can approach the High Court. Such a subsequent challenge must be instituted as a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, rather than as a direct challenge to the original ex-parte order.

"if any order is passed by the Judicial Magistrate or the concerned Judge, Family Court, under Section 145(2) B.N.S.S., thereafter the revision should be preferred before this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984."

Directions To Approach The Trial Court

Rejecting the revision petition at the threshold, the High Court declined to entertain the husband's contentions regarding the allegedly excessive nature of the Rs. 30,000 monthly maintenance or his actual income. The bench directed the revisionist to approach the Family Court at Jhansi to seek the recall of the August 2025 order. Acknowledging that the statutory period to file such an application might have lapsed, the court granted liberty to the revisionist to file an appropriate application for the condonation of delay along with a supporting affidavit before the trial court.

"the revisionist is directed to approach the concerned family court and move an application under Section 145(2) B.N.S.S. for recalling the order dated 20.08.2025."

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision on the strict ground of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy. The ruling practically reaffirms the procedural discipline required under the BNSS, ensuring that High Courts are not burdened with direct revisions against ex-parte maintenance orders when trial courts possess the explicit statutory power to recall them.

Date of Decision: 30 March 2026