1 2025:CGHC:34976 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 532 of 2020 Pramod Suryawanshi S/o Shri Makhan Suryawanshi Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Matiyari, Police Station Seepat, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Radhika Suryawanshi W/o Shri Pramod Suryawanshi Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Kaunwatal, Police Station Seepat, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Kavya Suryawanshi D/o Shri Pramod Suryawanshi Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Her Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Radhika Suryawanshi, R/o Village Kaunwatal, Police Station Seepat, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the orders dated 11.01.2019 & 15.04.2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.314/2018, whereby, the Family Court has directed the applicant / AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 husband to pay the arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.36,000/- and if the applicant fails to pay the same, he shall be arrested and produced before the Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that it is an undisputed fact that respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, and their marriage was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage ceremony, respondent No. 1 went to her in-laws' house and started living with the applicant, and after their cohabitation, respondent No. 2 was born. After spending a few years of peaceful married life, the petitioner started suffering from leprosy, and respondent No. 1 began quarreling with him, neglecting his care, leading to disputes between them. She then left the petitioner in an unwell condition without any valid reason and went back to her parental home. Subsequently, the respondents/applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Family Court, stating that she is a housewife with no source of income, and her husband had left her without any reason, forcing her to live with her minor children at her parental home. After hearing both parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the interim maintenance application on April 6, 2017, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents as maintenance. Thereafter, the respondents / applicants filed an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recovery of the maintenance amount, and the learned Family Court issued a warrant against the applicant 3 without serving notice or providing an opportunity for hearing. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has issued a warrant against the petitioner without serving notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, which is a clear violation of the summons and warrant proceedings. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.), is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the applicant has the right to submit his clarification and reasons before the learned Court below prior to passing any order. However, the learned Family Court issued a warrant against the applicant without serving notice or providing an opportunity for hearing, which is a clear violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that the learned Family Court had various options to serve notice to the applicant, but neither was any notice served nor was any order passed for paper publication as a means of serving notice. Instead, the Court passed an order issuing a warrant against the applicant. Notably, the applicant is suffering from leprosy and is undergoing treatment at TLM Hospital Chandkhuri, Baitalpur, Mungeli (C.G.), as evidenced by the medical documents collectively filed and marked as Annexure A-3. This constitutes a clear violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Family Court is liable to be quashed/set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 4 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, stating that she is a housewife with no source of income and her husband had left her without any reason, forcing her to live in her parental home with her minor children. The learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, partly allowed the interim maintenance application vide order dated April 6, 2017, directing the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents as interim maintenance. Despite this order, the applicant failed to pay the interim maintenance, leading the respondents to request the issuance of an arrest warrant on January 11, 2019. Consequently, the learned Family Court, vide order dated April 15, 2019, directed the applicant to pay Rs.36,000/- as arrears of interim maintenance, and in case of default, an arrest warrant would be issued against the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court has directed the applicant / husband to pay the arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.36,000/- and if the applicant fails to pay the same, he shall be arrested and produced before the Court observing that the respondents filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the learned Family Court, stating that she is a housewife with no source of income and her husband had left her without any reason, forcing her to live in her parental home with her minor children. The learned Family Court, after hearing both parties, partly allowed the interim maintenance application vide order dated 5 April 6, 2017, directing the applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondents as interim maintenance. Despite this order, the applicant failed to pay the interim maintenance, leading the respondents to request the issuance of an arrest warrant on January 11, 2019. Consequently, the learned Family Court, vide order dated April 15, 2019, directed the applicant to pay Rs.36,000/- as arrears of interim maintenance, and in case of default, an arrest warrant would be issued against the applicant. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil