1 2025:CGHC:12743 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 277 of 2025 1 - Rajveer Singh S/o Late Balveer Singh Aged About 61 Years R/o House No. 27, Infront Of Saraswati School, Kailash Nagar, Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Geetanjali Goswami W/o Rajveer Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o- Kharun Greens, Kumhari, Plot No. 28 Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) 2 - Balraj Singh S/o Rajveer Yadav Aged About 8 Years (Name Of Father Wrongly Mentioned As Rajveer Yadav In Some Places In The Impugned Order) Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Geetanjali Goswami W/o Rajveer Yadav Aged About 48 Years, R/o- Kharun Greens, Kumhari, Plot No. 28 Tehsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate For Respondents : None Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18.03.2025 1. The present revision under section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the applicant, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2025( Annexure A/1) whereby the learned Principal 2 Judge Family Court, Durg Chhattisgarh has dismissed an application filed under Section 145 sub section 2 of the BNSS, read with section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. in miscellaneous unregistered criminal case. 2. Brief facts of the case are such that the applicant and respondent no. 1 got their marriage solemnized on 11.10.2010 in an Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur. The first wife of respondent no. 1 has been died and from her the respondent no. 1 has two children. Whereas the applicant was divorced from her first husband. Out of the wedlock of the present applicant and respondent no. 1, they had a child(respondent no. 2 herein). Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance filed by the respondents vide order dated 09.11.2021 where she has alleged that after four-five months of their marriage, the present applicant changed his behavior towards her and started quarreling, fighting and abusing her on silly things. The reason behind the change in his behavior is because the children from the first wife of the respondent no. 1 doesn't used to like her and they too used to argue and fight with the applicant. After the birth of her child 3 the children of the first wife of the respondent no. 1 tried to strangulate her child. They also tried to do obscene things with her. She made a complaint about all this in the Police Station, upon which the respondent no. 1 badly abused her and even hit her and thrown her out of the house. Upon appreciations of the finding placed before the Principal Judge Family court, Durg Chhattisgarh ordered ex-parte judgment, and the application for maintenance by the applicants were partially allowed and the respondent no. 1 was directed to pay a maintenance of Rs. 12000/- to the wife and Rs. 7000/- to the child. Hence a total of Rs. 19000/- per month to be paid by the husband as a maintenance. And it was also ordered that the maintenance amount payable to the child will be payable till he attains the age of majority. 3. Being aggrieved by the ex-parte judgment , the applicant preferred an application under Section 145(2) of Indian Civil Security Act, 2023 read with section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay in submission of the application. The learned trial court rejected the said application filed by the applicant on the ground that it is not registrable due to being 4 presented outside the time limit and that the proceedings of the case have been closed. The applicant was not able to submit any reasonable and satisfactory explanation regarding the delay of each day from the date of information. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has not received any notice and his son had not told him anything regarding the notice at the relevant point of time as he used to live in both the places. Moreover the applicant has paid a huge amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 30.11.2021, Rs. 7,00,000/- on 21.05.2022 and subsequently Rs. 76,000/- on 29.08.2023 to the respondent no. 1. He even lost his private job during the covid crisis. Hence he pleads to allow this present criminal revision and set aside the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 and prays to remand the matter back for fresh consideration before the learned trial court in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 as well as 29.11.2022 with utmost circumspection. 6. The present applicant contended that he has not received any 5 notice/summon and passed an ex-parte judgment, but on bare perusal of the order sheet dated 16.12.2021(Annexure A/2) it clearly reveals that the elder son of the applicant Rajveer Singh denied to accept the notice/summon. Thereafter after almost a year on 29.11.2022 the learned trial court passed an ex-parte order by partially allowing the maintenance against the applicant. In the considered opinion of this court the concerned learned trial court has passed the ex-parte order after giving sufficient time of lapse to the applicant and after considering on each and every aspect presented before regarding the earning capacity of the applicant and the respondent no. 1. Hence it cannot be said that the learned trial court has made any illegality and perversity in partially allowing the maintenance application. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant filed an application under Section 145(2) of BNSS read with Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay in submission of the application. The learned trial court rejected the said application filed by the applicant on the ground that it is not registrable due to being presented outside the time limit and 6 that the proceedings of the case have been closed. The applicant was not able to submit any reasonable and satisfactory explanation regarding the delay of each day from the date of information. In the considered opinion of this court the applicant filed the application for condonation of delay after a lapse of almost two years which in beyond prescribed limit 8. Section 05 of the Limitation Act provides as under:- 5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases- Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908( 5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 9. Usually the court adopts a liberal approach in consideration for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if there is no gross negligence or deliberate in action or lack of bonafide mistake, the application should be allowed but where there is negligence or deliberate in action or lack of bonafide mistake committed by the party, the application should not be entertained and be rejected. In the present case on 16.12.2021 the applicant’s elder son denied to accept the 7 summons/notices, therefore, on 29.11.2022 learned trial court passed an ex-parte order by partially allowing the maintenance application against the present applicant/revisioner. However, in the considered opinion of this court there seems to be no valid, cogent and reasonable ground on which Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 be allowed. 10. Hence the impugned order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Durg Chhattisgarh is not illegal, perverse and there pertains no jurisdictional error in the said order. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision devoid of merits deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However if there arises any substantial change in the circumstances of the status of either of the parties then the applicant is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the concerned Family Court, if law permits. No order as to cost(s). sd/- Alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge