1 2025:CGHC:27066 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1126 of 2023 Surbhi Singh Chauhan W/o Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Chauhan Aged About 31 Years Currently At Ashwini Nagar, Near Jagannath Mandir, Purani Basti, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Kanwaljeet Singh Chauhan S/o Shri Gorakhnath Singh Chauhan Aged About 34 Years First Address Flat No. 202, Galaxy Apartment, Near Sanket Colony, Amravati M.H. 444601, Second Address Kanwaljeet Singh Chauhan, Assistant Director, Camp Road, Paranjape Colony, Amravati, Maharashtra 444601, Third Address C/o Sunanda Chauhan, Court Gali Newasa, Ahmed Nagar, Maharashtra, 414603 2 - Superintendent Of Police Amravati At S P Office, District Amravati, Maharashtra, 444601 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Faiz Kazi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23 /06/2025 1. Heard Mr. Faiz Kazi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. None for the respondent. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 3. The petitioner has filed the petition seeking following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent No. 02 to serve the levy warrants being issued by the trial court upon respondent No. 01 and send the service reports back to the court in timely manner thereby ensuring the said respondent's appearance before the trial court to secure the ends of justice.” 4. Brief facts are necessary for the case are that the petitioner had moved an application under section 125 CrPC which was allowed by the trial Court on 23.05.2022 and directed the respondent No. 01 to pay Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of the application i.e. 08.12.2020. Despite the judgement of the trial Court, respondent Nо. 01 deliberately refrained from paying the maintenance amount. It is worth mentioning here that in absence of maintenance amount, the petitioner was facing acute financial problem therefore, she moved an application u/s 125(3) CrPC on 06.06.2022 for recovery of arrears of maintenance as she has not received any single penny from the respondent. After filing of the recovery application, the trial Court at first issued summons for the appearance of respondent No. 01 but despite that the respondent not only deliberately avoided the service of summons but he failed to appear before the trial Court. It is also submitted that on the same address mentioned in the cause title of recovery application, 3 summons in the previous case filed u/s 125 was served and the respondent had appeared before the Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the said act of the respondent, the petitioner on 19.12.2022 moved an application for issuance of levy warrant against the said respondent whereafter the trial court issued levy warrant directing respondent No. 02 (Local S.P.) to ensure appearance of respondent No. 01 before it but, respondent No. 02 ignoring the trial Court's order, failed to serve the said levy warrants upon respondent No. 01. It is also submitted that respondent No. 02 did not even send the service report back to the trial Court. It is also alleged that respondent No. 01 is Class 1 Government Employee in Maharashtra Government and is serving at a higher post therefore, from the conduct of respondent No. 02, it is apparent that under influence of respondent No. 01, respondent No. 02 police authority is deliberately disobeying the trial Court's order and is neither serving the levy warrant nor returning the service report and due to inaction of its part, the petitioner is facing acute financial problem as she has not been paid any maintenance since separation. Hence, the petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1, a Class 1 Officer in the Maharashtra Government, is allegedly using his influence to manipulate respondent No. 2 (the police authority). He further submits that serving court summons or warrants to a government officer, like Respondent No. 1, should 4 be straightforward since government employees are required to provide their contact and address details. The repeated failure of Respondent No. 2 (the authority responsible for serving legal documents) to successfully serve the warrant strongly suggests that Respondent No. 2 is colluding with Respondent No. 1. This alleged collusion appears to be enabling Respondent No. 1 to evade his legal responsibilities, particularly in relation to complying with the court’s directives regarding maintenance payments. Such actions undermine the legal process and leave the petitioner without the financial support ordered by the court, further exacerbating her hardship. The petitioner’s assertion highlights the need for accountability and transparency in the execution of legal procedures, especially when government officials are involved. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents appended with the petition. 8. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and also considering the pleadings made in the petition, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, present Cr.M.P. stands dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil