Filing absent petition is mandatory for respondent?

Is it case under DV Act or a case under CrPC/BNSS?

Sir, 

Case is under section 144 of BNSS. 

It is possible to file a petition to dispense with personal appearance in a maintenance case, specifically under Section 205 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 

This section allows a Magistrate to exempt an accused from appearing in person if they have a valid reason and if the Magistrate believes it is in the interest of justice. 

The Magistrate will consider factors like the inconvenience or prejudice caused to the accused by their absence from work or profession, and the prejudice caused by their non-appearance.

 It's important to note that dispensing with personal appearance is not a matter of right, but a matter of the Court's discretion. 

Yes,you can file petition u/sec 317 of BNSS for dispensing with personal appearance in court and get exemption to appear personally on each and every date of hearing.

Very well opined and advised by learned experts.

You may put any subsequent dispute / query to your professor / coach /tutor.

@KalaliSelvan and @Goyal

Sir,

Presently the maintenance case under the family court judge. So, If the petitioner under Section 205 or 317 is allowed by family court judge? Can you please confirm once? 

A petition under section 205 can be filed for dispensation of personal appearance of the respondent fully whereas the petition filed under section 317 is an exemption petition for that particular date of hearing alone.

Gratitudes towards experts giving advices. However, please note that S.205 and S.317 mentioned above are from CrPC and not from BNSS.

Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows a magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused under certain circumstances, is equivalent to Section 228 in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Both sections grant the magistrate the discretion to allow an accused to appear through a pleader instead of requiring their physical presence in court.  There is nothing wrong in clarifying the details even though the techincality would be different, here in this platform opinion that matters especially when there is nothing wrong in claryifying the querist in his own understandable language.