1 2025:CGHC:36864 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 405 of 2024 Shiwant Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Awadhram Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o T V Tower Atarmuda, Mig-41, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ravina Yadav W/o Shri Shiwant Kumar Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o T V Tower Atarmuda, Mig-41, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Minor Suryans Yadav S/o Shri Shiwant Kumar Yadav, Aged About 5 Years, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Ravina Yadav W/o Shri Shiwant Kumar Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o T V Tower Atarmuda, Mig-41, Raigarh, Tah. And Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. I.A. No.1 of 2024 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision of 407 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the revision is KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 hereby condoned. 4. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the Cr.M.J.C.No.F-49/2020 and after its perusal allow this Revision and set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 (Ann.A/1) passed in the case of (Smt. Ravina Yadav and another Vs Shiwant Kumar Yadav) by the Family Court, Raigarh and remand the matter to the Family Court with direction to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner granting time to cross examination of respondent herein, in the interest of justice.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance from the applicant alleging that the applicant/husband has made cruelty with the non-applicant No.1 and he deserted her and thrown from the house. The Non-applicant/ wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance before the Family Court Raigarh from the husband stating that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 09.09.2013 at Raipur in Arya Samaj Mandir as per their religion and custom and out of their wedlock, one male child born in her in-law house, the non-applicant No.2. It has been pleaded in the application that they were living together for two years happily and thereafter it is alleged that the applicant demanded dowry from the non-applicant and also demanded gold and silver ornaments and also demanded cash 3 amount from her. Further the applicant was tortured in consuming liquor. On 04.07.2020 the applicant thrown out the non-applicants from his house. It has been pleaded in the application that after marriage, the non-applicant No.1 was residing with the husband and during that period, the husband started tortured to the non-applicant No.1 with physical and mental. For usual demand, the applicant abused to the non-applicant No.1 and also beaten her. She has been mentally and physically harassed by the husband/applicant. He abused her and also assaulted to the non-applicant No.1 and stated to leave out the house. Therefore the Non-applicant No. 1 is residing to her parental house at Kasdol Distt. Baloda Bazar. After some time, the non-applicant No.1 went in the village Kusmura Distt. Raigarh with her parents. On 17.08.20 the applicant compromised the case and took the non-applicants and residing at her resident at Atarmuda. Thereafter the applicant resided elsewhere and he is not giving maintenance amount to the non-applicants. It is further pleaded that in the name of the non-applicant No.1 has one plot bearing Khasra No.59/30 area 1250 square fit and except this, there is no other movable and immovable property in the name of the non-applicant No.1 and there is no means of livelihood and they are depended upon the applicant for their livelihood. It has been further pleaded in the application that the applicant is working in RTO Office at operator and every month he is getting Rs.35,000/- per month of salary. As such the non-applicants prayed before the court below that the maintenance amount to each of the of Rs.8,000/- per month may be granted in favour of them. 4 6. The applicant has filed reply of the above application and denied the averment made in the applicant and stated that he has not tortured and demanded any dowry amount. He has not assaulted and tortured the non-applicant No.1 in consuming the liquor. It is also denied that he is living separately with the non-applicant No.1. It is stated that the non-applicant No.1 is educated and she is getting education to the children in giving tuition classes and also earning through stitching the clothes sum of Rs. 15,000/- per months. It is further stated that there was love relation between them and the marriage was performed in Arya Samaj Mandira at Raipur. It is stated that the parents of the non-applicant No.1 started coming into the house of the applicant and told to the non-applicant No.1 for demand of Rs.27,000/- per months from the applicant. When the applicant denied giving the amount, on 16.09.2020 the the quarrel started. It is stated that on non-applicant No.1 sent to her parental house when the applicant was suffering from fever and he was also suffering from corona Virus from 21.09.2020 to 30.09.2020 and he was admitted in the hospital and during this period, she went to her parental house. It is further stated that the he has purchased the plot in the name of his wife of Rs.5,25,000/- and also purchased gold ornaments, TV, Freeze and other domestic articles for the non- applicant No.1. It is also stated that he purchased the plot in the name of the non-applicant No.1 in sum of Rs.7,25,000/- and he is getting salary of Rs.33,000/- in which the installments deducted Rs.15,880/- per month and presently the applicant is getting after deduction sum of Rs. 16,000/- per month. It is stated that after 5 considering the reply, the application filed by the non-applicant No.1 may be rejected. It is respectfully submitted that after filing of the reply the proceedings has been initiated and notices issued to the applicant and on 22.03.2021, the learned Family Court passed order for granting interim maintenance to the non-applicants a sum of Rs.2000/- each total amount of Rs.4000/- per months the applicant has not been granted to the non-applicants. Thereafter, the applicant has prosecuted the case till 18.18.2022 and the case was fixed on 16.09.2022. On 16.09.2022, the applicant’s counsel and the applicant could not appear before the court below and the learned Family court proceeded ex-party order and the case was fixed on 28.09.2022. On 28.09.2022 applicant's counsel appeared in the case and filed application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC for setting aside ex- party proceedings drawn on 28.09.2022 showing his good reasons. Though on 28.09.2022, the case was fixed for recording evidence of non-applicant No.1 witnesses and also the witness was not present on that date. Thereafter, the case was fixed on 10.10.2022 and on 10.10.2022 the applicant's counsel could not appeared and the application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC has been rejected. The case was fixed on 03.11.2022 and the non-applicant No.1 submitted evidence in form of Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and the same was accepted and the proceeding against the applicant has been held ex- party and no opportunity of cross examination of the plaintiff has been granted to the defendant and case fixed for final argument on 15.11.2022. The learned Family Court Raigarh passed final ex-party 6 order against the applicant. The learned Family Court Raigarh has not granted opportunity of hearing to the applicant and also not granted opportunity to examination of the plaintiff and ex-party final order has been passed on 15.11.2022. On 26.02.2021, the applicant filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of Conjugal Right before the Family Court Baloda Bazar Distt. Baloda Bazar Bhatapara. It is stated that the applicant wanted to keep the non-applicant No.1 as wife. It is stated that there was quarrel for usual manner as husband and wife. The applicant wants to keep the respondents as he loves his son and wife and wanted to keep them. On 24.03.2021 the non-applicant No.1 appeared before the Family Court Baloda Bazar and stated that she does not want to live with husband and perform conjugal rights. The applicant has then, not pressed the application mentioning that if the wife is not willing to live with him, the application is not pressed. The learned Family Court passed order and dismissed the application as not pressed. Thereafter the applicant filed application under section 13 (1) (A) of the Hindu Marriage Ac 1955 before the Family Court Baloda Bazar on 06.04.2021 and dissolution of marriage performed on 09.09.2013 between the parties. The case was registered as Civil Suit No.60A/2021. The applicant stated that since the non-applicant No.1 did not want to live with the applicant and he wants keep as wife but she denied in the proceedings under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore the marriage performed on 09.09.2013 may be dissolved. The Non-applicant No.1 became ex-party on 24.09.2021 7 and thereafter she could not appear before the court and the learned Family Court Baloda Bazar passed the order on 06.10.2021, the suit has been decreed and the marriage performed on 09.09.2013 between the parties, has been dissolved and it is held that the non- applicant No.1 is not wife of applicant from 06.10.2021. It is further submitted that the divorce has been granted by the Family Court Baloda Bazar on 06.10.2021 and under the proceedings of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act she has stated that she does not want to live with the petitioner. Therefore the non-applicants are not entitled for maintenance amount as she is not now the wife of the applicant. Since the opportunity was not granted to the applicant before the Family court, he could not produce the documents and also evidence with this regard. 7. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Family Court has passed ex-party order of maintenance on 15.11.2022 whereby, directed the applicant to pay Rs. 3500/- per month to the non-applicant No.1 as well as Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No. 2/minor towards maintenance (total 5500/-). Hence, this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the facts that no opportunity was granted to cross examination of the non-applicant No.1. He has filed reply of the maintenance application and on 16.09.2022, the applicant became ex-party as his counsel could not appear as he was suffering from fever. On that date, the matter was made ex-party as per record. On 28.09.2022 the applicant's counsel appeared in the case 8 and filed application for setting aside ex-party proceedings held on 16.09.2022. But on the next hearing date on 10.10.2022, he could not appear and the application rejected. The ex-party proceedings have been passed against the applicant and the case was fixed for evidence on 03.11.2022. He further supbmtis that the learned Family Court has passed ex-party order on 15.11.2022 for maintenance and no opportunity was granted to the applicant for defence of his case. There is violation of natural justice in the present case. These aspects have not been considered by the Family Court, Raigarh therefore the order passed for grant of maintenance amount of Rs.5,500/- per month, is illegal. The learned Family Court has only on the basis of pleadings and statement of the non-applicants and no any opportunity was provided to make defence to the applicant, therefore the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 is perverse and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence placed on record, has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 11.From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available in record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 ex-parte, whereby it has partly allowed the 9 application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3500/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 (Total 5500/- as maintenance). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non- applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 12. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 14. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal