The legal contention in this case adjudicated by Hon’ble Bombay High Court is
From Para 8,
“whether passing of an exparte order in the present case, was proper and justified.”
“There was no such pressing necessity in the facts of this case to pass an exparte order, particularly when it was nobody’s case that the petitioner was willfully remaining absent or was willfully avoiding service of the notice which was already been issued to him.”
From Para 9,
On the contrary, in the decision reported in Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (supra), it has been mentioned that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the husband even while passing an interim order of maintenance. In the instant case, when interim orders for maintenance passed by two the other Courts were already in favour of the respondent no.1 wife, there was hardly any occasion to pass an exparte order of maintenance.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
