Madhya Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar Mishra vs Shailja Mishra on 1 September, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat, Anuradha Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41584
1 FA-1638-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
&
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
FIRST APPEAL No. 1638 of 2024
SATISH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
SHAILJA MISHRA
Appearance:
Shri Arunodaya Singh - Advocate for the appellant.
None for the respondent, though served.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vishal Dhagat
Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984 challenging the order dated 15.05.2024 passed in HMA No.99A/2022
by Presiding Judge, Family Court, Rewa (M.P.).
Learned counsel appearing for appellant has submitted that by impugned
order dated 15.05.2024 the case was dismissed as appellant failed to comply with
the orders of payment of maintenance amount. He further submitted that the Court
should not have dismissed the suit for non-compliance but ought to have decided
the same on its merits as power of dismissal is not available with the Court. He
further placed reliance on a judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Bhuneshwar Prasad Vs. Dropta Bai reported in AIR 1963 MP 259 . In
the said case, it has been held that if direction has been given to pay maintenance
pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings and if same are not paid, then the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41584
2 FA-1638-2024
Court may exercise its inherent power to stay the matrimonial action for the
purposes of carrying out the purposes of the order.
Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent. Respondent is
proceeded ex-parte.
Perused provision of Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short 'CPC'). As per the said provision, it has been laid down that if the
Court has passed some orders directing parties to perform certain act and if said
act has not been performed then, if parties are present, the Court will proceed to
decide the suit and if parties are not present then Court may take action in
accordance with Order IX of CPC. Considering the aforesaid provision, it is clear
that Court either ought to have stayed further proceedings till compliance of the
Court order or it ought to have proceeded on merits of the case and should have
decided the case finally, but could not dismiss the suit in absence of any specific
provision under CPC.
Considering the aforesaid discussion, appeal is allowed and the order dated
15.05.2024 is set aside. Case is remanded to the trial Court to act in accordance
with provision of Order XVII, Rule 3 of CPC.
At this stage, counsel appearing for appellant submitted that the entire
payment will be made before the trial Court within a period of 30 days. Arrears
and other pendente lite maintenance amount will be deposited before the trial
Court within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) (ANURADHA SHUKLA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sjk
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:41584
3 FA-1638-2024
