1 2025:CGHC:32657 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 302 of 2017 Suraj Kumar Sidar S/o Shivcharan Sidar Aged About 25 Years Caste Gond Sidar, Occupation Labourer, R/o Odekera , Police Station And Tahsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Ganesh S/o Suraj Kumar Sidar Through Natural Guardian Mother Subhadra Kumari Sidar, Aged About 18 Years 06 Months, D/o Kartik Ram Sidar, Occupation Service, R/o Railway Station Baradwar, Police Station Baradwar, Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 08.03.2017 (Annexure A-1) by allowing the revision, in the interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11-02-2016, the legal guardian of the non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance, in which the Family Court issued notice to the KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 applicant and on 08-04-2016 the notice has been served to the applicant through Jailer because at that time the applicant was languishing in jail, relating to S.T.No.198/2015 under Section 376 of IPC. Thereafter on 13-05-2016, the applicant appeared before the Family Court, seeking time to file his reply on application filed by the non-applicant. Thereafter, again on 07-06-2016, the matter was fixed for reply but the applicant not produced before the Court from the Jail, therefore the case adjourned for next date. On 12-07-2016, when the case is fixed for hearing before the Family Court, that day, the applicant has not appeared before the Court concerned and the legal guardian of non-applicant informed the Court that the applicant acquitted from the trial Court in relating to S.T.No.198/2015, therefore the case has been adjourned for the next date. Again on 08-08-2016, when the case was fixed for hearing before the Family Court, that day, the applicant was not appeared before the Family Court and ex-parte proceeding has been initiated against the applicant by the Court without giving any notice to the applicant and the learned Family Court fixed the case for recording of witnesses and on 12-08-2016 the application filed by the non-applicant has been allowed and it is directed to the applicant to pay Rs.500/- per month as a maintenance to the non-applicant. 3. Thereafter the applicant came to know about the ex-parte order dated 12-08-2016 and immediately thereafter on 07-12-2016, an application under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. along with under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed by the applicant with giving reason that on 07-06-2016 when case was fixed for hearing 3 before the Family Court, that day he was not appeared before the learned Family Court and immediately thereafter on 30- 06-2016 he was acquitted by the trial Court in relating to S.T.No.198/2015 and on the next date i.e. 12-07-2016, he was not informed about the next date of Family Court and thereafter on 08-08-2016, the ex- parte order has been passed against the applicant. Thereafter the non-applicant filed reply of the application filed by the non-applicant and after recording of evidence, the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicant on 08-03-2017 (Annexure A-1). 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the impugned order dated 08-03-2017, passed by the Family Court suffers from impropriety, perversity, incorrectness and therefore not sustainable according to law. He further submits that when the ex-parte order was passed against the applicant i.e. on 08-08-2016 and before the earlier date of hearing i.e. 12-07-2016, the applicant was acquitted by the trial Court in relating to S.T.No.198/2015 by judgment dated 30-06-2016. The Sessions trail Case, which was registered against the applicant in which the complaint was lodged by the mother of non-applicant namely Subhadra Kumar Sidar, who is legal guardian of non-applicant and the trial Court acquitted the applicant from the charges, which was leveled against him, therefore the trial Court erred in holding that the non-applicant Ganesh was illegitimate child of applicant and passed the order of maintenance of Rs.500/- per month, which is bad in the eyes of law. After acquittal order, the applicant also suffering from diarrhea and vomiting and the treatment is going on, therefore after the acquittal order, he is not 4 able to appear before the Family Court. He also submits that during the pendency of Criminal Case, which was registered against the applicant, the non-applicant through his legal guardian filed maintenance and the applicant is in jail in the said criminal case, therefore the mother of non-applicant by taking advantage filed an application for maintenance an application for against the applicant, which is wrong and when the Court has informed by the mother of non-applicant on 12-07-2016, that the applicant has been acquitted by the Sessions Court in criminal proceeding, the Family Court without issuing notice, proceeded ex-parte against the applicant and passed order of maintenance without verifying the averment made by the mother of non-applicant, which gross irregularity made by the learned Family Court further, without giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the order of maintenance has been passed against him and when the applicant filed an application under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the learned Family Court rejected the said application without appreciating that there is delay of only few days while filing the application under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. and rejected the application. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the non-applicant has (ex-parte) partly 5 allowed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the non-applicant and has granted maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to the non-applicant and further order to bear Rs. 500/- for litigation expenses. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred an application under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. along with Section 5 of Limitation Act before the learned Family Court concerned and after appreciating the documents and materiel available on record, the learned Family Court rejected the said application. While granted the maintenance amount in favour of non-applicant, the learned Family Court observed the income, social and economic status of both the parties and current price index, which cannot be shockingly and said to be on higher side. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal