1 2025:CGHC:38439 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 799 of 2019 Mohammed Ateeq S/o Anwar Khan Aged About 32 Years R/o 1937, Road No. 08, Near Khwaja Gareeb Nawaz Mosque, V. V. Vihar Aman Nagar, Mowa Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Salma Parveen W/o Mohammad Ateeq Aged About 32 Years Through M.S. Sheikh (Father) R/o Block No. 04/76 Lakshmi Market, Zone- 02, Khursipar, Police Station Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mohammad Rafiq S/o Mohd. Ateeq Aged About 7 Years Through Mother Smt. Salma Parveen Block No. 04/76 Lakshmi Market, Zone- 02, Khursipar, Police Station Khursipar, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Saleem Kazi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 04 /08/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.361/2018, whereby, the learned Family Court dismissed the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the Family Court, seeking to set aside the ex- parte order passed against him and to have the matter heard on its merits. The background of the case is that the respondents had filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC in 2007, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 543/2007 and later renumbered as Criminal Case No. 20/2008. The court awarded interim maintenance, and subsequently, an ex parte final order was passed on June 2, 2009, granting maintenance to the respondents. The applicant claims that he was unable to attend the court proceedings due to a threat to his life. On the date of the ex parte order (May 23, 2009), he was allegedly waylaid by goons near Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, who intended to cause harm or even kill him. Consequently, he went into hiding in Raipur and remained absconded until his arrest in another case on October 11, 2018. Upon his arrest, the respondent No. 1 appeared in court and objected to the applicant's bail, mentioning the outstanding maintenance amount. The applicant then obtained a certified copy of the case proceedings and learned about the ex parte order. The applicant filed an application under Section 126(2) of the CrPC, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking to set aside the ex parte order. However, the 3 respondents opposed the application, alleging that the applicant was attempting to evade his liability to pay maintenance. The applicant contended before the Family Court that he had been divorced by the respondent No. 1 before she filed the maintenance application and that the respondent No. 2 was not his child. The Family Court dismissed the applicant's application, rejecting his explanation for the delay and holding that the reason provided was vague and lacked day-wise explanation for the delay. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and is bad in law, the Family Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the applicant, resulting in an erroneous order. He further submits that the Family Court erred in not considering the applicant's explanation for fleeing due to a threat to his life. He also failed to consider the material fact that the respondent has remarried and is no longer in need of maintenance. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the Family Court is liable to be set-aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court dismissed the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant observing that the applicant has claimed that he was absent on May 23, 2009, due to being waylaid by goons hired by his wife, Salma Parveen, with the intention of killing him. He allegedly hid in Raipur from May 23, 2009, to October 11, 2018, to save his 4 life. The applicant's explanation for his absence for over 9 years appears to be highly exaggerated. It is implausible that he remained hidden for such a long period and had no knowledge of the case proceedings during this time. The circumstances under which he allegedly hid for 9 years and his claimed lack of awareness about the case during this period do not seem credible. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil