A single judge bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4-7,

4. When the revision petition came up for consideration on 20.3.2023, this Court admitted the revision petition and stayed further proceedings in M.C.No.6/2020, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits the arrears of maintenance due to the second respondent and continues to pay interim monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- to the second respondent. This Court had called for a report from the Family Court, to ascertain as to whether the revision petitioner was served with notice prior to the passing of the impugned order.
5. Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judge of the Family Court, by communication dated 27.3.2023, has informed this Court that the order
sheet and the records in M.C.No.6/2020 reveal that even before notice was served on the revision petitioner in the application, a counsel named Sri. K.R.Muraleedharan appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner on 13.12.2023 and prayed for time for appearance of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the application was adjourned to 27.10.2022 and then to 16.12.2022, on which date the impugned order was passed. It is also reported that the counsel failed to file any vakalath. Subsequently he gave his no objection certificate to another counsel named Sri.S. Nidhin, who has now filed a vakalath for the revision petitioner.
6. On a consideration of the assertions in the memorandum of the revision petition, the materials placed on record, and the communication of the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is evident that the notices in both the M.C as well as Crl.M.P. were not served on the revision petitioner. It is only on the basis of the submission made by a counsel, that the Family Court assumed that the revision petitioner had failed to appear in the application and then passed the impugned order. Thus, I am of the definite view that the revision petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to contest the Crl.M.P. on merits.
7. In the above conspectus, I am of the firm view that the order has to be set aside and the revision petitioner be granted an opportunity to file his objection to the Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C. No.6/2020, which will do complete justice to both sides.

Finally,

In the result,
(i) The order in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 in M.C. No.6/2020 is set aside.
(ii) The revision petitioner and the respondents are directed to appear before the Family Court on 1.12.2023.
(iii) The revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file his written objections both in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C.No.6/2020, within 30 days from today.
(iv) The Family Court shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC 1] and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma [Crl.Appeal No. 3446/2023], and direct the parties to file the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities.
(v) The Family Court shall dispose of Crl.M.P. No.16/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from 1.12.2023.
(vi) The Family Court shall also make an endeavour to dispose of M.C. No.6/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) is here.