1 2025:CGHC:32633 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 499 of 2021 Rajputra Rathiya S/o Late Gulab Rathiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhagora Post Tilga Police Station Chakradharnagar District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Smt. Thirmati Rathiya W/o Rajputra Rathiya Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Singhpur Police Station Bhupdevpur Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. Current R/o Village Singhanpur Police Station Bhupdevpur Tehsil Kharsiya District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14 /07/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.) in M.J.C. No.F-83/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 dismissed the application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and respondent got married on July 2, 2012, at Village Singhanpur, as per Hindu customs. However, their marital life was short-lived due to conflicts and alleged torture by the applicant and his parents, leading the respondent to leave the matrimonial home. On April 29, 2019, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, claiming maintenance from the applicant. Despite knowing about the applicant's alleged mental health issues and unemployment following their marital life, the respondent proceeded with the application. The Family Court admitted the application and issued a notice to the applicant on May 2, 2019, with a hearing scheduled for May 30, 2019. However, the applicant allegedly did not receive the notice and was unaware of the proceedings. An ex-parte order was passed on May 31, 2019, directing the applicant to pay maintenance to the respondent. The applicant, being illiterate and unaware of legal proceedings, later discovered that an ex-parte order could be restored for a hearing opportunity. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, the courts were closed, and the applicant was unable to take action. When the Family Court resumed limited functioning in January 2021, the applicant still faced challenges due to the ongoing pandemic. On June 30, 2021, the respondent's case was dismissed for want of 3 prosecution due to the applicant's non-appearance. The applicant now seeks to challenge the ex-parte order and requests a hearing opportunity to present his case. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the learned Family Court below was unjustified, reasonable opportunity of hearing was to be given to the applicant, as after some days, when an ex-parte order was passed of maintenance, the applicant tried to file an application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order and for granting to lead evidence regarding his unemployment, but due to rise in cases of COVID-19 patients, the application of the applicant was not filed. He further submits that the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the actuality and ambit of COVID-19 pandemic guidelines, therefore cognizance U/S 126(2) should have been taken by the Learned Family Court, Raigarh, which not only gives power of to hear and determine the case ex-parte, but the aforesaid section also gives the court immense power to set-aside their own order of ex-parte good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms at to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper. He also submits that the learned court below erred in the eye of law, while examining the passing ex-parte order and even dismissing the case of the applicant for want of prosecution, knowing the fact about the applicant's income as the applicant was not granted opportunity to 4 place material evidence on record which distinctly clarifies that the applicant is earning a single penny enough to give maintenance to his wife/respondent. 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 Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, 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 learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant has failed to prove through evidence that the notice issued in the various criminal cases filed by the respondent against the applicant, bearing case number F 54/2019, was not served on him or that he has any valid ground for setting aside the said order. Therefore, it is evident that the order dated 31.05.2019, passed in the aforementioned case is not liable to be set-aside. 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 5 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