MP High Court Quashes Ex-Parte Order Over WhatsApp Notice

The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an ex-parte maintenance order passed by a family court, citing lack of proof that the notice was served through WhatsApp and email.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Wasim Khan, who had challenged the family court order directing him to pay Rs 10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, Anam Khan.

The couple married in June 2021, and the wife later filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking monthly maintenance of Rs 2 lakh.

During the proceedings, the family court closed the husband's right to defend the case and passed an ex-parte order in December 2023 awarding Rs 10,000 per month.

The husband contended before the HC that he was never properly served with notice and that the proceedings were conducted behind his back.

He also argued that the family court wrongly assumed his monthly income to be Rs 40,000 without documentary evidence, despite his claim that he was only a struggling gym trainer.

The HC found that notices initially issued to the husband had been returned unserved, and the family court subsequently ordered service through WhatsApp, email, and registered post.

However, there was no material on record showing that the WhatsApp or email notices had actually been delivered or that service through registered post had been confirmed.

The HC observed that the family court proceeded to declare the husband ex parte and decided the maintenance case despite the absence of any conclusive report on electronic service.

This failure to verify service through WhatsApp or email struck at the root of the principles of natural justice and amounted to a material procedural irregularity.

Allowing the revision petition, the HC quashed the maintenance order and directed the family court to hear the matter afresh after ensuring proper service and giving both parties a fair opportunity to be heard.

The parties have been directed to appear before the family court on August 17.

The ruling highlights the importance of proper service of notice in the digital era, emphasizing that merely directing service through digital means is not enough unless there is proof that the notice was actually served.

This decision is likely to have implications for cases where digital notices are used, and parties must ensure that they have proof of service to avoid similar disputes.

In the context of the case, the HC's decision provides a fresh start for the husband, who will now have the opportunity to present his case and defend himself against the maintenance claim.

The case also underscores the need for family courts to exercise caution when using digital means to serve notices, ensuring that all parties are properly informed and given a fair chance to participate in the proceedings.