1 2025:CGHC:37242 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 711 of 2025 Ashish Yadav S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav Aged About 35 Years Permanent R/o Bajrang Chowk, Selud, Tehsil- Patan, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Working At- Jayaswal Neco. Siltara Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Vandana Yadav W/o Shri Ashish Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Shitla Mandir, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Palash Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. I.A. No. 01/2025, is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal of 85 days. 3. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.01 13:07:09 +0530 2 Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C. No.48/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. 5. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of maintenance. Vide order dated 22.05.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 77/2023, the Learned Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) passed an ex parte order directing the applicant/husband to pay maintenance to the respondent/wife. On 05.01.2024, the applicant/husband filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 22.05.2023 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 77/2023. It was submitted that the applicant had no knowledge of the case under Section 125 CrPC, as no summons were ever served upon him. He became aware of the proceedings only upon appearing before the Court on 19.12.2023. The applicant further stated that although his permanent address is Village–Selud, he works at Jayaswal Neco, Siltara Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Raipur, and is generally stationed in Raipur due to his employment. As a result, he was unaware of the service of summons. Accordingly, it was prayed that the ex parte proceedings be set aside, and he be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The respondent/wife filed her reply denying the averments made in the application under Section 126(2) CrPC. She contended that summons were duly served upon the applicant and that he had knowledge of the proceedings. It was further submitted that the applicant intentionally avoided appearance to delay the matter and harass her. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the application. After hearing both parties, the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.), vide order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Criminal M.C.C. No. 48/2024, rejected the 3 application under Section 126(2) CrPC by assigning vague and unsatisfactory reasons. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has passed the order which is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, which is liable to be dismissed. The applicant acted promptly after getting the knowledge of the ex-parte order in October- November 2023, and his conduct demonstrates bona fide intent to comply with legal process rather than avoid it. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the applicant, being employed in a factory at Raipur and residing away from his permanent address, was unable to receive the Court notices in person due to occupational constraints. The learned Family Court erred in holding that the summons were duly served upon the applicant, despite the absence of certified or conclusive proof of service or acknowledgment. The ex-parte order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly the applicant's right to be heard, as guaranteed under law. He further submits that no undue prejudice would have been caused to the respondent if the ex-parte order had been set aside and the matter heard on merits. The learned Family Court have failed to consider that the respondent has not produced the evidence to prove her case and completely negates the contention of the applicant. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set- aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From the perusal of the orders of the Family Court, it transpires that the primary issue to be considered in the present case is whether the notice issued to the applicant in the original proceedings under Section 125 of 4 the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly served upon him or not. During cross-examination, the applicant admitted that the address mentioned in the title of his application under Section 126(2) CrPC, and supported by his affidavit, is the same as the one mentioned by the respondent in her application under Section 125 CrPC and in the order passed therein. This address is also the same as that mentioned in the applicant's Aadhaar card, PAN card, and the divorce petition filed in the Durg court. Upon perusal of the original case record, it is found that the notice issued by the Court for the applicant’s appearance in the case under Section 125 CrPC bears the applicant's signature on the acknowledgment, indicating that he received the notice to appear in the original proceedings. However, without any sufficient cause, the applicant failed to appear on the scheduled date, which led to ex parte proceedings against him. Therefore, the applicant has failed to establish that the notice was not duly served upon him in the original proceedings. As such, the ex parte order passed against him was just and proper, and there is no ground to set it aside. Hence, the application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) CrPC is found to be devoid of merit and is accordingly rejected. As such, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order and the same warranting no interference by this Court. 9. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant herein and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court. 10. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be 5 transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti