1 2025:CGHC:74 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 1138 of 2024 Vikram Kumar Tamboli S/o Late Damodar Tamboli Aged About 42 Years R/o Nayapara In Front Of Hanuman Mandir, Dhamdha Tahsil And Police Station - Dhamdha, District- Durg ( C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Laxmi Tamboli W/o Shri Vikram Tamboli Aged About 36 Years, 2 - Deepika Tamboli D/o Shri Vikram Tamboli Aged About 08 Years, minor Through- Her Mother Namely Smt. Laxmi Tamboli W/o Shri Vikram Tamboli, Aged About 36 Years, Both are R/o in front of Purani Basti Police Station Purani Basti Raipur, Tahsil And Distt- Raipur ( C.G.). ---- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant 2 under Section 19(4) of the Family Court’s Act, 1984 by challenging the order dated 12.08.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 2023 in the impugned order) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G) in M.C.C. No.284/2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 126(2) for setting aside ex-parte order dated 31.05.2022 which has been rejected. 3. Brief facts of this case are that, the marriage of the petitioner and responding No.1 was solemnized on 24 March, 2013 according to Hindu rituals at Lakshmi Narayan temple Lily chowk Raipur. On 24.02.2022, application under Section 125 CrPC is filed by the respondent No. 1 herein, alleging that, out of wedlock with the petitioner, when the respondent No.1 gave birth to the respondent No. 2 at that point of time the petitioner did not come to see the respondent No. 2 and even, he did not bore the expenses. It is also alleged that after marriage, the behavior of the petitioner was very cruel against the respondent No. 1 and he used to commit marpeet with the respondent No. 1 and in the month of August, 2021 the respondent no. 1 was forced to leave the matrimonial house. Thereafter, the petitioner has not made any effort to bring the respondent no. 1 back and therefore, respondent No.1 residing separately from the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Courts below have failed to appreciate that, the petitioner has 3 very fairly submitted that, notice for 29.04.2022 was served upon him, and when he asked the concern Clerk, he informed that, matter has been adjourned and when again notice will be received then he has to appear and therefore, the mistake on the part of the petitioner is bona-fide. Thus, he ought to have been given, one opportunity to defend his case. He further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly hold that, the petitioner was represented through his counsel, therefore, it cannot be accepted that, he was unaware about the pendency of the proceedings filed u/S 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that, the petitioner has never filed any application for engaging the counsel in the proceeding's u/s 125 Cr.P.C., nor he moved any application u/s 13 of Family Court's Act, which is clear from the order-sheets also and therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court in this record is not correct. It is submitted that the learned trial court ought to have appreciated that, as per Section 13 of the Family Court's Act 1984, without the permission of the Family Court, no party can take or seek for legal representation and admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner had not filed any such application and therefore, the finding so recorded by the learned trial Court is erroneous. It is further submitted that the learned trial court ought to have appreciated that, the petitioner is a rustic person, who runs a small betel shop and he had not engaged any 4 counsel therefore, he could not dare to appear before the Family Court. It is submitted that, even the quantum of maintenance is on higher side, therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned order and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Though in the order-sheet of trial Court dated 29.04.2022, it is mentioned that notice issued to the applicant has not been served upon him, therefore, fresh notice was issued to him, but order dated 31.05.2022 reflects that notice issued to the applicant has been duly served upon him. 7. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is ready to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to his wife ie respondent No.1 & Rs.4,000/- per month to his daughter ie respondent No.2. 8. Considering facts of the case, above submissions made by counsel for the applicant, impugned order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure A/1) is hereby set aside. Applicant is directed to appear before the Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) on 14.01.2025 and learned trial Court is directed to provide full opportunity to the applicant to defend his case in accordance with law. Learned 5 Family Court shall decide the case on its own merit expeditiously preferably within a period of ‘six months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, in the meantime, applicant shall pay sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the respondents (Rs.8,000/- per month to his wife/respondent No.1 & Rs.4,000/- per month to his daughter/respondent No.2). 9. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of this case and observation made by this Court is only in respect of interim maintenance, the trial Court would not get influenced by the same and would pass the order on its own merits. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR