1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 81 of 2016 Suresh Kumar Sinha S/o Sarju Sinha aged about 60 years R/o Village and Post: Chichola, Police Station and Tahsil: Dongergarh, District: Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant Versus Jantri Bai W/o Suresh Kumar Sinha, aged about 49 years R/o Panch Rasta, Near Hanuman Mandir, In Hut, Supela, Police Station: Supela, Tahsil and District: Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aishwarya Diwan, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 17.04.2025 1. The instant revision has been filed by the present applicant under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 03.11.2015 passed by Second Additional Principal Judge, Family SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2025.04.17 16:26:54 +0530 2 Court, Durg (C.G.) passed in M.J.C. No. 02 of 2014, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the applicant- husband under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for dismissal of ex-parte order passed in favour of the respondent-wife. 2. Facts of the case are that, parties are the applicant-husband and respondent-wife. Earlier, Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Case No. 331 of 2007 vide order dated 27.03.2008, granted maintenance to the respondent-wife and the application filed by the respondent-wife for maintenance was decided in terms of mutual consent and the maintenance amount was fixed for Rs. 1,000/- per month. Thereafter, the respondent-wife filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per month which was decided by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 493 of 2013 wherein the husband who was ex-parte and after considering the evidence, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 1,000/- vide order dated 09.12.2013 in favour of the respondent-wife and the said order was challenged by the applicant-husband, the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg wherein, the said application was rejected vide order dated 03.11.2015. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 09.12.2013 passed by Family Court, Durg whereby, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/- from Rs. 1,000/- is an ex-parte order. He further submits that on the date of order, the husband could not appear before the Court due to his severe health problem and the 3 Family Court committed error while passing the ex-parte order, therefore, it is prayed that the present revision may be allowed and order passed by the learned Family Court be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 5. On perusal of the record, it would show that the applicant and respondent are husband and wife and as per order dated 27.03.2008, the maintenance amount of Rs. 1,000/- was to be paid by applicant- husband to his wife-respondent on the basis of mutual consent and after few years, the wife has filed an application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. to Rs. 6,000/- from Rs. 1,000/-. During the said proceedings, the husband-applicant was present before the Family Court on 03.05.2013 and the case was fixed for reply on 11.06.2013. On 11.06.2013, the husband was not present, therefore, the ex-parte proceedings were done, thereafter, several dates were fixed by the Family Court but the applicant-husband was not present on the dates of evidence/hearing, ultimately, after completion of respondent-wife’s evidence and the evidence for respondent-wife was closed on 04.12.2013 and after hearing the final argument, the learned Family Court, Durg has passed the order on 09.12.2013, wherein, the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs. 5,000 from Rs. 1,000/- per month. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the order dated 09.12.2013 before the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, wherein, the learned Family Court after proper appreciation of the evidence, vide order dated 03.11.2015, rejected the application filed by the applicant for dismissal of the ex-parte order passed against him holding in Para 17 that the 4 ex-parte proceedings were taken against the applicant-husband on 11.06.2013 and ex-parte order was passed on 09.12.2013, but no document has been produced by the applicant-husband regarding his ill health from the dates i.e. from 11.06.2013 to 09.12.2013, nor has any other documentary evidence been produced regarding his being seriously ill during the said period to prove that he was unable to appear in the hearings continuously. 6. In view of above, it is clear that the husband was present before the Family Court on 03.05.2013 and was aware of the further date of hearing but the husband-applicant had not appeared on the date of hearing and sufficient opportunities were provided to the applicant- husband despite that he could not appear, therefore, the learned Family Court proceeded further and after appreciating the evidence available on record, passed the order dated 09.12.2013 and impugned order dated 03.11.2015. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and material available on record, the learned Family Court was justified in granting maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the respondent-wife and also justified in dismissing the application of the applicant-husband, which in the considered opinion of this Court, is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Revision being devoid of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Saurabh