1 2025:CGHC:43599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1064 of 2025 Praveen Awasthi S/o Ramnarayan Awasthi Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No.14, Near Sharda Nagar, Bodla, Police Station And Tahsil- Bodla (Wrongly Mentioned As Kabirdham), District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Arpita Awasthi W/o Praveen Awasthi Aged About 27 Years Hemlata Dubey, Wd/o Late Rajendra Dubey, R/o Subhas Nagar, Ward No.04, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Shivansh Awasthi S/o Praveen Awasthi Aged About 1 Years Through The Natural Guardian Mother Arpita Awasthi, W/o Praveen Awasthi, Aged 27 Years, Hemlata Dubey, Wd/o Late Rajendra Dubey, R/o Subhas Nagar, Ward No.04, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.08.2025 1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and set aside the judgment dated 15/07/2025 passed by the Principle KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.383/2022 and consequentially allowed the application of the applicant Under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the interest of Justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Bilaspur seeking maintenance from the applicant in which 28/03/2022 an ex-party judgment was passed by which the maintenance to the amount of Rs.3000/- granted to the non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2000/- granted to the non- applicant No.2. 3. The case of the non-applicants was that the marriage of the applicant and the non-applicant no.1 was solemnized on 04/06/2014 as per Hindu Rituals and from the wedlock of the applicant and the non-applicant no.1, the non-applicant no.2 was born on 13/11/2017. At the time of marriage of the applicant and non- applicant no.1, the applicant was working at Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bodla and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and was having 10 acres of Land and other properties at Bodla. Therefore, the non-applicants have filed the application seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month from the applicant. 4. The applicant was proceeded ex-party in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on 28/03/2022 an ex-party judgment was passed by which the maintenance to the amount of Rs.3000/- to the non-applicant No.1 3 and Rs.2000/- to the non-applicant No.2 was awarded. When the applicant got the knowledge of ex-party judgment dated 28/03/2022 was passed by which the maintenance to the amount of Rs.3000/- to the non- applicant no.1 and Rs.2000/- to the non-applicant no.2 was awarded, the applicant has filed an application under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Family Court, Bilaspur for cancellation of ex-party judgment dated 28/03/2022 on the ground that the applicant was not residing at the address which was mentioned in the application and when in the domestic violence case, the non-applicant No.1 disclose the fact that there was an ex-party judgment dated 28/03/2022 was passed for grant of maintenance, the applicant came to know and filed the present application. 5. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.383/2022 rejected the application of the applicant under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that since the applicant could not adduced evidence with respect to the fact that the applicant doesn't resides at the address which was mentioned in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore, the application of the applicant under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is suffering from "Deep vain Thrombosis" and the doctor has to undergo surgery of Skin Grafting but since the applicant doesn't 4 have any place of Skin Grafting, the surgery has not taken place till date and on account of which the applicant couldn't do the work efficiently. Not only this, the non-applicant no.1 has also filed a complaint against the applicant and other family members of the applicant under Section 12 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in which 10/11/2021, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) has passed an order for payment of Rs.2000/- to the non-applicant no.1. He further submits that the applicant has not brought on record all these facts before the Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) therefore, the applicant has filed an application under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the ex-party judgment of maintenance dated 28/03/2022 but, the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.383/2022 rejected the application of the applicant under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He further submits that the learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) failed to see that intentionally and purposefully the non-applicant no.1 has not given the correct address of the applicant in the application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) has not satisfied itself to the fact that whether the report of ordinary mode of service of notice has been received served or not to the applicant. The learned Principle Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) failed to see that the applicant is not in a position to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the maintenance to the non-applicants as the total salary of 5 the applicant is Rs.4,950/- which the applicant is receiving from Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Bodla. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the applicant, Praveen Awasthi, though granted sufficient opportunity by the Family Court to lead evidence in support of the facts pleaded in his application under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, failed to adduce any evidence and allowed his right to lead evidence to lapse. Consequently, the applicant has completely failed to prove the facts stated in his application. It further appears that the ex parte proceedings initiated in MJC No. 744/2019 against the non- applicants were conducted in accordance with the proviso to Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. The record clearly demonstrates that the applicant deliberately avoided service and willfully neglected to appear before the Family Court, as a result of which the ex parte order came to be passed. The applicant has also failed to furnish any sufficient or bona fide reason to justify his absence during the proceedings. Accordingly, on consideration of the relevant points for determination, this Court finds that the applicant has utterly failed to substantiate his contentions. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court 6 has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the record of the present case to the concerned trial Court within a week from today for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal