1 2025:CGHC:46410 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2844 of 2025 Roopnarayan Bajpayee S/o Late Shri Rajan Bajpayee Aged About 38 Years R/o Khursipar, Bihari Colony, P.S. Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Smt. Pooja Tiwari Bajpayee W/o Roopnarayan Bajpayee Aged About 32 Years R/o Tiwari Saw Mill, Tilda, P.S. Tilda, Near Nevra Station, Tahsil Tilda District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11.09.2025 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenging the legality and propriety of order dated 14.07.2025 whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner before the First Additional Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in a petition filed by respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C has been dismissed. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that petitioner and respondent were legally married on 09.02.2011 and out of the wedlock, a child was born. However, due to some differences between the two, petitioner moved ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.09.16 14:12:52 +0530 2 an application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and thereafter counseling was conducted. But the respondent refused to live with petitioner and ultimately marriage was dissolved on 27.07.2016 . Meanwhile, respondent filed a complaint case under Section 498 of IPC against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, from which petitioner was acquitted on 30.01.2021. Petitioner then filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before First Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Raipur in which a final order was passed on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties and petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Being aggrieved, respondent again filed an application for maintenance before the Family Court, Raipur, which after due consideration was dismissed. Thereafter, respondent suppressing the facts, again filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming Rs. 26,000/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner. Upon which petitioner filed a preliminary objection, which too was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent (divorced wife of petitoner) has earlier filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court in which the parties arrived at a settlement and petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to respondent as maintenance. Thereafter, there was a decree of divorce was passed on 27.07.2016 dissolving marriage between the parties. The respondent again filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. which was dismissed on the ground that she was not able to prove that she is not having any source of livelihood. After sometime she again moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, on the ground that, now she is not working as LIC agent, as such, she is not having any 3 source of livelihood. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection which was dismissed by learned Family Court. He submits that only ground raised before this Court is that within a short period of time again an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed after rejection of second application for maintenance. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record of trial Court. 5. Perused the impugned order Annexure P-9 in which learned Family Court has observed that the objection raised is a mixed question of facts and law. From the aforementioned observation made by learned Family Court, it is apparent that petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds as raised in preliminary objection in a reply to be filed by him and it is to be considered by the learned Family Court while deciding application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on merits after recording evidence of both the sides. 6. In view of the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any good ground in this petition to interfere with the impugned order passed by learned Family Court and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the grounds as raised in this petition in his reply to application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, learned Family Court shall decide all the grounds to be raised by the petitioner in reply at the time of passing final order on application under Section 125 of CrPC. 7. In view of above, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) alfiza Judge