Implied power to restore maintenance petitions supports liberal relief where sufficient cause explains absence in welfare proceedings.

A Family Court dealing with a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC has implied ancillary power to restore a petition dismissed for default, even without an express provision like Order IX CPC. The court held that the power to dismiss for non-prosecution necessarily includes a corresponding power to restore in appropriate cases, especially in a welfare-oriented maintenance proceeding. On the facts, the refusal to restore was unjustified because sufficient cause was shown for absence, the matter had been pending for a long time, and interim maintenance had already been granted. The restoration refusal was therefore set aside and the maintenance proceeding ordered to continue expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Family Court had power to restore a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dismissed for default; (ii) whether the refusal to restore the maintenance proceeding was justified on the facts.

Issue (i): Whether the Family Court had power to restore a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dismissed for default.

Analysis: The absence of an express provision akin to Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not exclude all corrective power. The Court distinguished inherent powers, which are not available to courts subordinate to the High Court, from implied, ancillary, and incidental powers necessary to make the statutory jurisdiction effective. In maintenance proceedings, the power to dismiss for non-prosecution carries by necessary implication the power to restore in appropriate cases. The welfare character of Section 125 also supported a liberal and effective construction.

Conclusion: The Family Court had implied ancillary power to restore the maintenance petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to restore the maintenance proceeding was justified on the facts.

Analysis: The Court held that maintenance law is intended to prevent destitution and therefore should receive a compassionate and practical interpretation. The appellant had shown sufficient cause for absence, the litigation was long drawn, and interim maintenance had already been granted, indicating prima facie entitlement. A rigid or hypertechnical approach to non-appearance would frustrate the object of the provision, and the circumstances did not warrant outright rejection of restoration.

Conclusion: The refusal to restore was not justified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The maintenance proceeding was ordered to be restored and proceed expeditiously before the Family Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A Family Court dealing with a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 possesses implied ancillary power to restore a petition dismissed for default, and such power should be exercised liberally where sufficient cause for absence is shown in a welfare-oriented proceeding.

---