1 2025:CGHC:15212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 284 of 2025  Saddam Husain S/o Jannat Husain Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Majhgawan, Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Koriya Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Israt Bano W/o Saddam Husain Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Rannpurkhurd, Mohalla Takiya, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2. Nigam Fatima D/o Saddam Husain Aged About 8 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Israt Bano W/o Saddam Husain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Rannpurkhurd, Mohalla Takiya, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 3. Sabba Fatima D/o Saddam Husain Aged About 6 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Israt Bano W/o Saddam Husain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Rannpurkhurd, Mohalla Takiya, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 4. Ahmed Rajja S/o Saddam Husain Aged About 2 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Israt Bano W/o Saddam Husain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Rannpurkhurd, Mohalla Takiya, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 01-04-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Ambikapur in Misc. Case No. 2 119/2024 dated 20.02.2025 whereby the right of the petitioner to defend his case has been closed. 2) Facts of the present case are that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 was solemnized on 17.04.2013. There are three children from their wedlock. Respondent No. 1 moved an application U/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the learned Family Court. She made various allegations with regard to harassment and cruelty against the petitioner. Petitioner filed reply and denied its averments. The petitioner was proceeded ex-parte as he could not appear on the date of hearing. An application was moved and ex-parte order was recalled vide order dated 12.11.2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. 500/- payable to the respondents and Rs. 500/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Ambikapur). Thereafter, on 26.11.2024, petitioner sought time to comply with the order dated 12.11.2024. On 20.02.2025, learned Family Court closed petitioner’s right to defend his case as he could not comply with the order dated 12.11.2024. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court ought to have afforded one opportunity to defendant to deposit the amount of cost. He prays to set-aside the order dated 20.02.2025. 4) Heard. 5) Taking into consideration the fact that the valuable right of the petitioner to defend the case has been closed by the learned Family Court on the ground that petitioner failed to deposit the cost of Rs. 1,000/-, therefore in the interest of justice, one opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 12.11.2024, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the respondents. 3 6) Accordingly, petitioner is directed to deposit total cost of Rs. 3,000/- on the next date of hearing before the learned Family Court. 7) It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit cost of Rs. 3,000/- on the next date of hearing, his right to defend the case shall be closed. 8) With the aforesaid direction(s), instant writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.04.02 10:19:32 +0530