1 2025:CGHC:31286 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 673 of 2021 Mukesh Lakra @ Bika S/o Shri Silbanus Lakra, Aged About 27 Years Occupation Government Servant R/o Village Bhulsi Kala, P. S. And Tahsil Kusmi, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Magdali Toppo W/o Balkumar Toppo Aged About 53 Years R/o Muktipara Ward No. 8, Gandhinagar, Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 30/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 126 of the CrPC filed by the applicant. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 3. The facts, in brief, is that on an application was filed by the respondent for grand of maintenance before the Family Court, the present applicant after service of notice made his appearance before the learned Family Court and filed his reply as well as he had appointed an advocate to appear before the learned Family Court. As the present applicant and the advocate were unable to appear before the learned Family Court, an ex- parte order was passed by the learned Family Court on 07.06.2019 and the learned Family Court had passed an ex-parte order in which the present applicant has to pay Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent/mother of the present applicant. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court the applicant on 17.01.2020 had filed an Application under Section 126 of CrPC along with application under Section 5 of Limitations Act, so that the applicant may be provided an opportunity of hearing to lead his evidence and to set aside the ex-parte order dated 07.06.2019. The learned Family Court upon receiving the above mentioned application registered the case as Misc. Criminal case No.30/2020 and the respondent had also filed her reply of the application under Section 126 of CrPC and with application under Section 5 of limitations Act in the above mentioned case. Vide order dated 30.07.2021 the learned Family Court had dismissed the application filed by the applicant and gave the finding that the application under Section 126(2) of CrPC to set aside the ex-parte order, the application is to be filed within a period of 3 months and the application should mention specific reasons and further held that to set-aside the ex-parte order the application must be filed within 3 months, with the aforesaid observation of the Family Court the application under Section 126 of CrPC along with application under Section 5 of Limitations Act were dismissed. Hence, this revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Judge failed to see that the applicant is the son of the respondent but the respondent had performed a second marriage with Balkumar Toppo and has 2 children from him and she has been residing separately since the childhood of the applicant, the aforesaid facts have been mentioned in the statement of the respondent recorded before the learned Family Court. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Family Court is baseless, and is liable to be set-aside. 5. 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 30.07.2021 passed by the learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 30/2020, whereby the learned Family Court, dismissed the application under Section 126 of the CrPC filed by the applicant, and he further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the same, therefore, the instant revision filed by the applicant/complainant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 4 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a certified copy of this order as well as the original records be transmitted to the concerned trial Court within a week for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar