[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Vivek Kumar vs Priti Kumari on 16 February, 2026
Author: Arun Kumar Jha
Bench: Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.772 of 2024
======================================================
Vivek Kumar S/O Gaurishankar Prasad Tanti, R/o - Champa Nagar Tanti
Bazar, Near Jain Temple, T.B.Road, P.S.- Nathnagar, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Priti Kumari W/o Vivek Tanti, D/o Dinesh Tanti, R/o Village- Kalyanpur,
P.S.- Bariyarpur, District- Munger.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ranjeet Patel, Advocate
Mr. Avnish Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset
submits that the petitioner is not in a position to make payment
of any maintenance amount and for this reason the order dated
09.09.2025
could not be complied with, by which a conditional
stay was granted to the petitioner against any coercive steps.
3. Since the petitioner has failed to comply with the
conditions of the order dated 09.09.2025 for making payment of
Rs. 9,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2 starting from
the month of September, stay on no coercive steps is vacated.
4. The instant revision petition has been filed
against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger passed in Maintenance
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.772 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
Case No. 22 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the learned
Family Court ordered the petitioner to pay a maintenance
amount of Rs. 9,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2.
5. In this case, an interlocutory application has
been filed for condonation of delay of 778 days which was
allowed vide order dated 09.09.2025 and the delay in filing of
revision petition was condoned.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner did not get any opportunity to contest the
claim of the opposite party no. 2. No notice was served upon the
petitioner and the learned Family Court without appreciating
this fact that the registered notice as well as notice sent through
speed post returned undelivered with an endorsement that the
petitioner did not stay at the address. Similarly, the notice sent
through ordinary process was also returned as it reached the
process server after the date fixed and it also appears that no
new date was fixed for fresh service of notice. However, the
learned Family Court has not considered all these facts. The
order of the learned Family Court is against the principles of
natural justice and an opportunity of hearing was not given to
the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2
vehemently contends that the petitioner avoided receiving the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.772 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
notices and got the notices returned with false endorsement.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner did not take
any steps for setting aside the ex parte order before the learned
trial Court. The petitioner has got every knowledge about the
proceeding before the learned Family Court and when the
matter reached the stage of execution, he has now approached
this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the present revision
petition and the same be dismissed.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the
record. From perusal of the record of the learned trial Court, I
find that the notice sent through ordinary process was returned
by the process server with noting that it was received after the
due date and was being returned without service. Similarly, the
undelivered registered cover and speed post also returned with
endorsement that the addressee did not reside at the address
anymore. Therefore, it appears that there is non-compliance of
Order V Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Further, no
steps were taken for substituted service under Order V Rule 20
of Code of Civil Procedure. One of the basic principles of the
common law system is that the other party should be heard
before passing any order against him and it appears that orders
of the learned trial Court is passed in violation of the rule of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.772 of 2024 dt.16-02-2026
audi alteram partem.
9. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned
order could not be sustained and hence, the said order is set
aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Munger / Successor Court on
25.02.2026 at 11:00 AM, and the Court concerned would give
an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, take
expeditious steps for disposal of the case before it.
10. Accordingly, the present revision petition is
allowed.
11. Office is directed to return the LCR forthwith,
if any.
12. If the petitioner fails to appear before the
learned trial Court on the aforementioned date, then the order of
this Court will lose its effect.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date 17.02.2026
