1 2025:CGHC:31384 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 777 of 2025 Vijay Dhruv (Uikey) S/o Shri Amar Singh (Uikey) Aged About 30 Years Occupation - Driver, R/o Gram Mannadol Fifra, Ps/tehsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Pooja Dhruv (Uikey) W/o Shri Vijay Dhruv (Uikey) Aged About 25 Years D/o Shri Narmada Prasad Netam, Aged About 25 Years, Occupation - Housewif, R/o Vip State, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil And District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No. 1019/2023, whereby the learned Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur, rejected the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedigns. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC against the applicant for grant of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 maintenance. As per the application for maintenance filed by the respondent in brief is that the applicant and the respondent got married as per their religious rites and customs on 30.06.2018 at Gram Pakar, District Dindori (M.P.). After their marriage, both the parties used to reside at the house of the petitioner along with his family. Further, the respondent on her application alleged that after 2 years of the marriage, the applicant used to drink and starts abusing the respondent. She also alleged that the applicant used to force her to drink liquor along with him and when she used to refused to do the same the applicant again used to start quarrelling and beating the respondent due to which from April 2021 she went to her maternal house and the applicant and the respondent are living separately since that day. The respondent alleged that the applicant is working as a driver in the Government Department who draws Rs. 25,000/- as a salary and he always gets Rs. 2,000/- per month as an allowance making income total of Rs. 27,000/- per month. The respondent is totally dependent upon her parents as she does not have any source of income. 4. The above application was filed before the Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) on 25.09.2023 and on the same day the matter was transferred to Second Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.). The notices were also issued for the presence of the applicant in that matter. The applicant appeared for the first time before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) on 07.11.2023 and the matter was referred for the mediation proceedings and on the basis of the mediation proceedings the matter was listed for compromise on Lok Adalat on 09.12.2023 but on that day the respondent did not appeared before the Court due to which the compromise between the parties cannot be done. The matter was adjourned for next date i.e. on 06.02.2024. 3 5. On every proceeding the applicant was present but for the first time the applicant could not appear before the Family Court on 13.11.2024 and informed the Court about the same through his informer whose signature is also present over the order sheet dated 13.11.2024 but because of absence of the petitioner the ex-parte proceedings were initiated. On 04.12.2024 when the petitioner appeared before the Court along with his reply, he came to know that ex-parte proceedings have been initiated against him then immediately he moved an application for setting-aside the order of ex-parte proceedings against the petitioner. The Family Court Raipur, vide its order dated 13.05.2025 rejected the application filed by the applicant for setting aside the order of ex-parte proceedings without application of mind. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance to the respondent is pending before the Family Court since 26.09.2023. It is further submitted that on 13.11.2024 the respondent was present through her counsel and the applicant could not be present before the learned Family Court, hence, ex-parte proceedings were ordered to be initiated which was challegned by the applicant in the present revision. The applicant remained not present before the learned Family Court as only his lawyer was appearing and it is stated that on 13.05.2025, there was no application moved on behalf of the applicant exempting his presence. It is stated that on 04.12.2024 the applicant had filed an application for setting-aside the order dated 13.11.2024 and the said application was rejected on 13.05.2025, and the applicant is ready to cooperate with the proceedings, hence, the said order be set-aside. It is also submitted that till date, no any interim maintenance has been granted to the respondent. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the matter is still subjudice before the learned Family Court, and till date no any interim maintenance has been ordered to be granted to respondent from the applicant, thus, no notice is required to be issued against the respondent, as the instant revision filed before this Court is only challenging the order of Family Court initiating the ex-parte proceedings. 9. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance to the respondent is pending before the Family Court since 26.09.2023, on 13.11.2024 the respondent was present through her counsel and the applicant could not be present before the learned Family Court, hence, ex-parte proceedings were ordered to be initiated which was challegned by the applicant in the present revision. The applicant remained not present before the learned Family Court as only his lawyer was appearing and it is stated that on 13.05.2025, there was no application moved on behalf of the applicant exempting his presence, and on 04.12.2024 the applicant had filed an application for setting-aside the order dated 13.11.2024 and the said application was rejected on 13.05.2025, and the applicant is ready to cooperate with the proceedings. Thus, the impugned order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in MCC No. 1019/2023, is hereby set-aside. 10. In view of the above, the instant criminal revision is allowed. 11. However, it is directed that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a 5 period of two months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. 12. Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar