[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pervez Zamal vs Sania Behna on 12 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20187
1 MCRC-10822-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 12th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 10822 of 2026
PERVEZ ZAMAL
Versus
SANIA BEHNA
Appearance:
Shri Dheerendra Mishra - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Saleem Rehman - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition is preferred by the petitioner under section 528 of
BNSS, 2023 assailing the orders dated 10.12.2025 and 04.02.2026 passed by
the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJCR
No.596/2024; whereby the learned Court rejected the application submitted
by the petitioner for taking parawise reply on record and later on the
application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
2. The short facts of the case are that the respondent filed the petition
under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 before the Family Court for grant of
maintenance against the present petitioner. Along with the petition, one
application for interim maintenance was also filed under section 144 of
BNSS, 2023 by the respondent. The petitioner filed the reply of interim
maintenance application on 25.08.2025 and thereafter the learned Family
Court decided the application filed by the respondent for grant of interim
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20187
2 MCRC-10822-2026
maintenance by order dated 28.08.2025 and directed to pay a sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondent from the
date of application i.e.06.08.2024.
3 . On 10.12.2025 the petitioner filed the reply to main application,
however, the learned Family Court declined to take the reply on record on
the ground that the petitioner has already filed the reply on 25.08.2025 and,
therefore, no permission can be granted to the petitioner to file the second
reply. That order is under challenge in the instant petition. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC with a prayer to
amend the reply filed on 25.08.2025 and that application was dismissed by
order dated 04.02.2026 on the ground that such application is not
maintainable as these facts were already in the knowledge of petitioner at the
time of filing the reply. That order is also under challenge in this petition.
4 . Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not granted
any opportunity to file the reply to the main application and the reply, which
was filed by the petitioner to the interim maintenance application, has been
treated as the reply to the main application and, therefore, the petitioner has
been denied opportunity to file the reply to the main application, which is not
permissible in law and petitioner ought to have been granted fair opportunity
to submit his reply to the main application. He further submits that the
proceedings of maintenance are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal and, therefore,
the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC are applicable and the Family
Court has committed error in rejecting the application filed under Order 6
Rule 17 of CPC. He prays for setting aside the orders dated 10.12.2025 and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20187
3 MCRC-10822-2026
04.02.2026.
5 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported
the orders passed by the Family Court on the ground that the reply, which
was filed by the petitioner on 25.08.2025, was the reply to the main
application and, therefore, the Court has not committed any error in not
permitting the petitioner to file the second reply on 10.12.2025. He further
submits that as the proceedings of section 144 of BNSS, 2023 is in the nature
of criminal proceedings, therefore, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC
are not applicable and no amendment can be carried out in the reply. He
prays for dismissal of the present petition.
6 . After due consideration of the arguments advanced by learned
counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears that the
main petition was filed under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and interim
application was also filed under section 144 of BNSS, 2023, therefore, in the
reply filed on 25.08.2025 to the interim maintenance application it was
mentioned as reply to application section 144 of BNSS, 2023, however, from
the perusal of reply it appears that it was not the reply to the main application
and it was the reply to the interim maintenance application. The Family
Court also considered that reply as a reply to interim maintenance
application and decided it by order dated 28.08.2025. When the petitioner
filed the reply to the main application, the Family Court declined to take it
on record and by order dated 10.12.2025 held that the reply has already been
filed by the petitioner to the main application on 25.08.2025. In fact from
perusal of the record, it appears that on 25.08.2025 only one reply was filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:20187
4 MCRC-10822-2026
by the petitioner and that was the reply to the interim maintenance
application and no reply was filed to the main application. It appears that the
Family Court has committed error in holding that the reply of the main
application has already been filed and the petitioner cannot be permitted to
file the second reply of main application. The order dated 10.12.2025 suffers
from non-application of mind and cannot be given seal of approval.
7 . Consequently, the order dated 10.12.2025 is set aside to the extent
that the reply filed by the petitioner was not taken on record.
8 . The reply filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2025 is directed to be
taken on record and it will be treated as a reply to the main application.
9. As the reply filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2025 has already been
taken on record, the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule
17 of CPC for amending the reply dated 25.08.2025 cannot be allowed
because as per the petitioner himself it was the reply to the interim
maintenance application, which has already been decided by order dated
28.08.2025 and now the reply to the said application cannot be amended.
10. With the aforesaid, present petition is partly allowed and the reply
filed on 10.12.2025 is taken on record. Family Court is directed to treat the
reply dated 10.12.2025 as reply submitted by the petitioner. No order as to
costs.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
TG /-
