-
by sayum
20 February 2026 10:40 AM
"Natural Justice Demands a Hearing — But Defiance of Court Orders Will Not Be Rewarded," In a notable decision balancing natural justice and judicial accountability, the Kerala High Court granted conditional relief to a husband who challenged an ex parte interim maintenance order passed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The judgment was rendered by Justice G. Girish in a revision petition filed by Shaji Y, against the orders of the Grama Nyayalaya, Ambalappuzha and the Sessions Court, Alappuzha, which had both upheld the maintenance award of ₹7,000/month to the petitioner’s wife.
However, the High Court set aside these orders only on the condition that the petitioner deposits ₹1,68,000/- as arrears of two years' maintenance within 30 days. Failing that, the previous orders would stand undisturbed and enforceable.
The case dates back to 2018, when Sajithamol M, wife of the revision petitioner, filed M.C. No. 16/2018 under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking protection and interim maintenance. On 1 December 2018, the Grama Nyayalaya at Ambalappuzha passed an ex parte order awarding ₹7,000 per month as interim maintenance.
The husband’s attempt to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed after he chose not to press the application. Later, he moved a petition under Section 25(2) of the PWDV Act to revoke the interim order — that too was dismissed by the Nyayadhikari on 21 December 2024. The Sessions Court in Crl. Appeal No. 17/2025 upheld the same. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court by filing the present revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC.
"Opportunity Was Given, But Not Used"
The High Court acknowledged that the husband had appeared through counsel as early as 24 July 2018, and was given ample time until 1 December 2018 to file objections and contest the interim maintenance claim.
However, he failed to act.
As the Court observed: "The revision petitioner, who appeared through counsel, did not care to file objection or to advance arguments, even after availing sufficient time. Still, the principles of natural justice require affording an opportunity to the revision petitioner to object the interim relief sought for by the aggrieved person."
The Court held that the right to be heard, though forfeited due to the petitioner’s inaction, cannot be entirely denied when the consequence is a long-standing financial liability arising from an ex parte order.
Court Pulls Up Petitioner: "Not a Single Paisa Paid Since 2018"
While extending the benefit of a fresh hearing, the Court expressed clear disapproval of the petitioner’s complete non-compliance with the interim order, observing:
"It is true that the learned Nyayadhikari proceeded with the case and passed Annexure-A7 order since the revision petitioner... did not care to file objection. Still, this Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that the revision petitioner has not so far paid even a single paise to the aggrieved person for her maintenance despite the order dated 01.12.2018."
The Court emphasized that granting a fresh hearing cannot be at the cost of undermining court orders. To this effect, it imposed a strict pre-condition for relief:
"It is highly necessary to meet the ends of justice that the revision petitioner has to be directed to deposit the arrears of interim maintenance for two years."
Conditional Relief: Set Aside Interim Order, Only If ₹1.68 Lakhs Is Paid
Invoking the doctrine of equitable relief, the High Court held that the ex parte interim order (Annexure-A7) and its confirmation (Annexure-A2 and Sessions Court judgment) would stand set aside, but only if the petitioner deposits ₹1,68,000/- within 30 days.
The Court elaborated: "Upon satisfied about the compliance... the learned Nyayadhikari shall hear the petition for interim maintenance afresh and pass orders, after considering the objection raised by the revision petitioner."
In the event the petitioner fails to comply, the Court made it unequivocally clear:
"If the revision petitioner does not comply with the direction... Annexure-A2 and Annexure-A7 orders of the learned Nyayadhikari, and the impugned judgment... will remain in force."
The Court also clarified the status of the deposited amount:
If maintenance is again awarded, the sum will be released to the wife.
If her claim fails, the amount will be dealt with under the final order in M.C. No. 16/2018.
A Judicious Balance Between Fair Hearing and Compliance
This judgment stands out for restoring procedural fairness while maintaining a strong stance against prolonged defiance of judicial orders. The High Court’s approach blends compassionate justice with conditional accountability, ensuring that the petitioner’s voice is heard, but only after he honours his obligations.
The decision reminds litigants that natural justice is not an escape route from responsibility, and ex parte orders, though open to challenge, must be respected until set aside.
Date of Decision: 30 July 2025
