Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Section 145
Procedure
(1) Proceedings under section 144 may be taken against any person in any district—
(a) where he is; or
(b) where he or his wife resides; or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child; or
(d) where his father or mother resides.
(2) All evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his advocate, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases: Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms as to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.
(3) The Court in dealing with applications under section 144 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.
Why this exists
Maintenance claims are usually brought by wives, children, or elderly parents who may lack resources to chase a husband or son across the country to file a case where he 'belongs.' This provision (carried over from Section 126 of the old CrPC) gives multiple flexible venues so dependents can sue wherever it's practically easiest for them, preventing the other side from escaping responsibility simply by moving away. The evidence-in-presence rule protects fairness, while the ex parte exception stops deliberate evasion from defeating urgent maintenance needs.
How courts read it
Under the identical predecessor provision (Section 126 CrPC), courts consistently held that maintenance jurisdiction rules are deliberately wide and claimant-friendly, meant to ease the burden on dependent wives, children, and parents rather than the person paying. Courts have held that 'resides' does not require years of residence — even a short stay can suffice if genuine. The ex parte safeguard has been read strictly: courts must be satisfied the absence was truly willful before deciding without the other side, and the three-month window to set aside such an order has been applied liberally in genuine hardship cases.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The maintenance case must be filed only in the district where the husband/father permanently resides.
Fact: The law allows filing in several possible places — wherever the person is, where the wife resides, where they last lived together, or where his parents live. - Myth: An ex parte maintenance order is final and can never be challenged.
Fact: It can be set aside if the person shows good cause within three months, though the court may impose cost conditions.