1 2025:CGHC:36115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 563 of 2023 1. Suvarna Awadhiya W/o Vikas Awadhiya Aged About 40 Years R/o 29/ 121, Awadhiya Para Purani Basti Raipur Mobile No. 9340539893, District: Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Varesh Awadhiya S/o Vikas Awadhiya Aged About 15 Years Through His Mother Suvarna Awadhiya R/o 29/ 121, Awadhiya Para Purani Basti Raipur Mobile No. 9340539893, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus Vikas Awadhiya S/o Moti Chand Awadhiya Aged About 45 Years R/o 73, Infront Of Sai Mandir Sunder Nagar Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.07.2025 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in C.A. No.1131/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the review application of the order dated 13.04.2022 in case No. 154/2021 stating that Family Courts are not empowered under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to review or alter its own order. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the First Principal Judge, Raipur (C.G.), passed an order dated 27.09.2018 in Miscellaneous Case No. 194/13, whereby the applicant was awarded maintenance of ₹4,500 per month PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.25 19:32:46 +0530 2 from the respondent for herself and her child. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, stating that the respondent had failed to pay the monthly maintenance since February 2019, and was therefore not complying with the order dated 27.09.2018. Accordingly, the applicant prayed for the issuance of a bailable warrant against the respondent. In response, the respondent submitted that a decree of divorce was passed on 03.07.2019 in H.M.A. Case No. 508/2016, wherein the Court directed that the applicant would be entitled to permanent alimony of ₹3,500 per month for her maintenance. He further submitted that he had been regularly paying the said alimony and furnished bank transaction records as proof. Additionally, the respondent stated that he had paid maintenance of ₹4,500 up to January 2019 and a total of ₹22,500 for the period from February 2019 to June 2019. The Court, vide order dated 13.04.2022, dismissed the application, observing that the applicant had already received the maintenance claimed. Subsequently, the applicant filed a review application (Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2023) seeking review of the order dated 13.04.2022. However, the said application was dismissed at the admission stage by order dated 02.03.2023 on the ground that the Family Court lacks the jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to review or alter its own order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the the learned Family Court has failed to give purposive interpretation to Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is a social justice legislation which orders for maintenance for wives, children and parents. The embargo contained in under Section 362 Cr.P.C. prohibiting the Court to alter or review its judgment or final order disposing the case does not apply to the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court failed to consider that 3 Section 125 Cr.P.C. itself indicates that the Court after passing judgment or final order in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not become functus officio. The Section itself contains express provisions where order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be cancelled or altered which is noticeable from Sections 125(1), Section 125(5) and Section 127 of Cr.P.C. The Legislative Scheme as delineated by Sections 125 and 127 Cr.P.C. as noted above clearly enumerated the circumstances and incidents provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure where Court passing a judgment or final order disposing the case can alter or review the same. The embargo as contained in Section 362 is, thus, clearly relaxed in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as indicated above. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the powers conferred by the Family Court Act, 1984 is not exhaustive in nature but includes powers to meet the end of justice. The impugned order is directly affecting the livelihood of the applicant and her child and that would also render the right to maintenance infructuous which was made to protect the interest of wife and child. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in C.A. No.1131/2023, whereby the learned Family Court has dismissed the review application of the order dated 13.04.2022 in case No. 154/2021 stating that Family Courts are not empowered under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to review or alter its own order, and submits that there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same, in which no any interference is called for. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statement of the witnesses and perusing the evidences available on record, the learned Family Court had passed the impugned order, and there is not any illegality or infirmity while passing the same warranting intereference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order as well as origional recored of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti