MP High Court: right to cross-examine survives even after defence is struck off in a maintenance case

In a criminal revision against a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 8,000 to a wife and Rs. 5,000 to her minor daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur (Justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal) held that the Family Court had committed an illegality by closing the husband's right to cross-examine the wife and her witness after he failed to deposit interim maintenance. Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court held that non-payment of interim maintenance only empowers a court to strike off a party's defence; it does not extinguish that party's right to cross-examine the opposite side's witnesses, and an award based on untested, uncross-examined testimony cannot stand once the point is raised.

The impugned order was set aside and the maintenance application was remanded to the Family Court to be decided afresh, after giving the husband an opportunity to cross-examine the wife and her witness, with the parties directed to appear before the Family Court on a fixed date. The husband remains liable only for the earlier interim maintenance amount until the fresh decision.