1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 78 of 2025 ------ 1. Nishchay Pande, son of Nilesh Gupta, aged about 13 years, Resident of 302, Royal Apartment, P.P Compound, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Hindpiri, District: Ranchi 2. Samridhi Pandey, Daughter of Nilesh, a aged about 13 years, Resident of 302, Royal Apartment, P.P Compound, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Hindpiri, District: Ranchi Both represented through their mother and Natural Guardian Nidhi Pandey, wife of Abhishek Kumar, aged about 40 years, Resident of 402, Royal Apartment, P.P Compound, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Hindpiri, District: Ranchi ……Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Nilesh Gupta, son of Nathu Ram Gupta, aged about 51 years, Resident of 73-Chandralok, Saloni Villa, P.O. & P.S. Saket, District; Indore, State: Madhya Pradesh-452018 ....…Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P ------ Order No: 03/ Dated: 03.03.2025 It appears from the office note dated 27.02.2025/03.03.2025 and service report of notice that the notice was taken by the Staff of O.P No.2 after making telephonic conversation, however, neither A/D nor un-delivered registered 2 cover has returned in section. 2. It appears that notice has been issued upon the O.P No. 2 vide order dated 27.01.2025 and for which, learned counsel for the petitioners had filed requisites on 29.01.2025. However, despite receiving of notice by the staff of O.P No.2, the O.P No.2 has not appeared. Thus, the service of notice upon O.P No. 2 is deemed to be valid. 3. This Criminal Revision has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Sri Syed Saleem Fatmi, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 174 of 2023 by which the maintenance case has been dismissed for non-prosecution by the learned Court below. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the learned Court below, without receiving the affidavit of the O.P No.2 with regard to disclosure of assets and liabilities in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh versus Neha reported in AIR (2021) 2 SCC 324, had fixed the case for evidence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that on 14.11.2024 there was condolence in the Civil Courts, Ranchi on account of sad demise of Late Advocate Jai Govind Singh who was a member of Ranchi District Bar Association, however, the learned Court below has dismissed the Original Maintenance Case for non-prosecution. The photocopy of the said condolence dated 12.11.2024 is enclosed as Annexure-4 to this Criminal Revision Application. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not able to lead evidence as one Dherya Pandey who is the other brother of the petitioners was ill and had undergone surgery and was 3 admitted on hospital from 06.10.2024 to 10.10.2024. It is submitted that the Kerela High Court in the case of Elon Christ Stephen versus Steaphen Antony Venasious reported in (MANU/KE/3041/2023) has observed that maintenance case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C should not be dismissed for default. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badshah versus Urmila Badshah Godse reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188 has held that adverse order should not be passed for the persons who has filed the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C and hence, the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 may be set aside and the maintenance case should be restored so that the petitioners may lead their evidence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners were negligent. 7. It is submitted that the petitioners had not adduced their evidence on 04.03.2024, 09.03.2024 and even on 27.09.2024 and as such, the Court has rightly dismissed the maintenance case due to non-prosecution and this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 8. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 9. It appears that both the petitioners are minor son and daughter aged around 13 years and are twins son and daughter of the O.P No.2 and who are being represented through their mother and natural guardian Nidhi Pandey and who are living in the District of Ranchi. 10. It appears from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioners, even though the O.P No. 2, after entering his 4 appearance had not filed his affidavit with regard to disclosure of assets and liabilities in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh versus Neha reported in AIR (2021) 2 SCC 324. 11. It appears from the discharge summary issued by Santevita Hospital, Ranchi that one Dhairya Pandey aged around 18 years, who is the elder brother of the petitioners, was admitted to hospital for operation and he was in hospital from 06.10.2024 to 10.10.2024. 12. The dismissal of case under Section 125 Cr.P.C by way of default has not been appreciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the High Courts. 13. It also appears that O.P No. 2 has also filed show cause before the Court below. 14. It also appears that on 14.11.2024 the members of the Bar were not attending the Court after making the condolence on the account of demise of Late Advocate Jai Govind Singh, who was a members of the Ranchi District Bar Association and the said notice has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to this Criminal Revision Application. 15. In view of the discussion made above, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law and it has dismissed the case hurriedly by without looking into the records of his case which has resulted into hardship to the petitioners. 16. Accordingly, the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Sri Syed Saleem Fatmi, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Maintenance Case No. 174 of 2023 is set aside and the Maintenance Case No. 174 of 2023 is directed to be restored in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, 5 Ranchi. 17. The learned Court below is directed to decide the maintenance case in accordance with law. However, the petitioners should remain vigilant and may adduce their evidence from the month of April. 18. It will open to the petitioner to make necessary prayer if the O.P No. 2 has not filed an affidavit regarding disclosure of his assets and liabilities in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Rajnesh versus Neha reported in AIR (2021) 2 SCC 324. 19. Thus, this Criminal Revision No. 78 of 2025 is allowed with the observation mentioned above. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Avinash/ N.A.F.R