1 2025:CGHC:32623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 692 of 2021 Kunti Dewangan W/o Santosh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 34 Years R/ o Village Ward No. 15 , Bilaigarh, Thana Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Santosh Kumar Dewangan S/o Umeshar Dewangan Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Tundra , Police Station Gidhuri, District Balodabazar Chhattisgarh., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 14.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. Aman Kumar Kesharwani, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 may kindly be pleased to 1. Allow this revision; 2. Set aside the impugned order dated 30/07/2021 passed by the judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 448/2019; 3. Restore this Misc. Cr. Case No. 448/2019 to its original number; and 4. Direct the Court below to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in accordance with law. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the marriage between the applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 29.04.2017 as per Hindu rites, and out of the wedlock, one son, Chirag, was born. Due to matrimonial disputes, the husband filed a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, and by judgment and decree dated 28.02.2020 passed in HMA No. 8-A/2019 by the Family Court, Balodabazar, a decree of divorce was granted. Aggrieved, the wife filed FA (MAT) No. 38/2021 before this Hon’ble Court, which was admitted on 06.09.2021, and operation of the divorce decree was stayed. Meanwhile, the applicant had also filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Misc. Cr. Case No. 448/2019 – Annexure P/2) seeking maintenance of ₹5,000/- each for herself and her son. Though the applicant was regularly attending the proceedings, due to personal difficulties and the COVID-19 pandemic, she could not appear on 30.07.2021, leading to dismissal of her application for want of 3 prosecution by the Court below. Hence, this revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 448/2019 is vitiated by gross illegality and is contrary to the settled principles of law and the evidence on record. Due to personal difficulties and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the applicant was unable to appear before the Court on the said date, leading to dismissal of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for want of prosecution, without granting a fair opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the applicant, being the mother of a minor male child aged about 6 years, is entitled to maintenance. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside, the case be restored to its original number, and the trial Court be directed to decide the application on merits in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel for the non-applicant could not dispute the said fact raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant could not appear before the trial Court on 30.07.2021 due to personal difficulties and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, and keeping in view that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution without affording 4 a fair opportunity of hearing, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Balodabazar, in Misc. Cr. Case No. 448/2019 is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 is hereby set aside, and Misc. Cr. Case No. 448/2019 is restored to its original number. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court, Balodabazar, with a direction to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to both parties. 9. However, it is directed that the concerned Family Court is at liberty to conclude the proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC, preferably within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order, if there is no any legal impediment. 10. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Family Court, Balodabazar, on 06.08.2025, for further proceedings. 11. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan