1 2025:CGHC:32942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1234 of 2022 Vishal Longiya S/o Late Kamalchand Longiya Aged About 40 Years R/o 36, Shitlamata Bazaar, In Front Of State Bank Of India, Second Floor Above Anmol Saree, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Other Address- Chip Jack Antique Shop, Jawahar Marg, In Front Of Gurudwara, Rajwada Road, Indore, Madhya Predesh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Rachna Longiya W/o Vishal Longiya Aged About 36 Years R/o Ashanand Niwas, Umang Colony, In Front Of Nursing Hostel, Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ishan Longiya S/o Vishal Longiya Aged About 12 Years Minors, Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Res. No. 1 R/o Ashanand Niwas, Umang Colony, In Front Of Nursing Hostel, Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Elisha Longiya D/o Vishal Longiya Aged About 3 Years Minors, Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Res. No. 1 R/o Ashanand Niwas, Umang Colony, In Front Of Nursing Hostel, Tikrapara, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision application and set aside the impugned orders dated 01.11.2022 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal M.C.C No. 279/2021 and set aside the order of maintenance under section 125 CRPC against the present applicant and remand the case to the lower court for reconsideration, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant and the non-applicant are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 12.10.2007 in Arya Samaj, Indore, Madhya Pradesh. It is worthy to mention that it was a love marriage and both the parties according to their own free will, have happily solemnized the marriage. Subsequently accepted by their family members also. It is worthy to mention that no demand of dowry was made neither by the present applicant nor any of his family members from the non-applicant or from any of her family members before or after the marriage. The applicant and non-applicant started their matrimonial life with great aspirations. Immediately after their marriage, they both live together at Indore in the parental house of the applicant. It is most humbly 3 and respectfully submitted by the present applicant that during the initial days of marriage, everything was fine and out of the said wedlock the couple was blessed with a Son i.e. non-applicant No. 2/ Ishan Longiya on 22.09.2008. That after two months i.e. on 15.12.2008, the father of the applicant expired and soon after the final rights of the father, the non-applicant/wife started demanding from the present applicant to live in Raipur permanently. After continuous demand of the non-applicant/wife to shift to Raipur, the applicant on 03.04.2010, the applicant shifted to Raipur and started doing job at Raipur. Thereafter, the applicant stayed in Raipur till the year 2014 and during the Diwali festival of 2014 it was informed to present applicant by the relatives that his mother is seriously ill, therefore the present applicant immediately rushed to Indore and started residing with his mother to look after her, thereafter the non- applicant/wife also shifted to Indore with the present applicant. The non-applicant/wife did not take care of applicant's mother and use to abuse the mother of present applicant. When the present applicant asked the non-applicant/wife to behave properly, she uses to quarrel and abuse the present applicant with filthy languages. Still the present applicant somehow managed the situation and the couple on 24.02.2017 were blessed with another child namely Elisha Longiya/ non-applicant No. 2 at Raipur. Thereafter, few months after delivery they came to Indore, where the non-applicant wife demanded to live separately with the him to which the present applicant took a house on rent in Indore and started living, the non- 4 applicant/wife wanted to run a saloon in the area for which the applicant took huge loan from market for purpose of opening a saloon, shop was opened and after months the non-applicant/wife all of sudden closed the business without telling the present applicant. When he asked about the same, she used to quarrel and used to be irritated all the time. Looking to huge burned of loan the present applicant again shifted to his parental house, where the non-applicant/wife continuously use to quarrel and demanded to live separately. In the meanwhile, couple lived in Indore when pandemic hit the country hard and there was lockdown in the entire country. It is worthy to mention that after relaxation in restrictions of lockdown non-applicant/wife requested to go to her parents' house in Raipur as she has not met her parents since long time and assured to come back when the school of the children reopens. The present applicant booked the tickets and the non-applicant/wife along with both children went to parents' house in Raipur and didn't return back. After some time when the present applicant called the non- applicant/wife for asking that when she is coming back, she use to assure that she will come soon and after some time blocked the present applicant from all means. On 30.06.2021 a notice came to the present applicant and to the utter shock of the applicant it was the notice by the non-applicant/wife seeking maintenance from him under section 125 Cr.P.C. The present applicant tried contacting the non-applicant/wife but could not get in touch. 5 Thereafter since the present applicant still wants to keep the non-applicant/wife and children's along with her and there was no means to contact her as she has blocked the present applicant, he accepted the notice and appeared before the Learned Family Court Raipur. 4. The learned Family Court sent the couple for counseling and there also the present applicant humbly bowed down and requested the non-applicant/wife to live together along with children and he is ready and willing to keep them and take care of them but, the non- applicant/wife without assigning any reason refused to live along with him. The present applicant has been regularly appearing before the learned Family Court barring few occasions where due to health reason he could not appear and engaged a counsel along with an application for Nyay Mitra before the learned Family Court. It is not the case that the present applicant was deliberately avoiding the notice or not appearing before the learned Family Court and instead he regularly participated in the proceedings as this was only way the present applicant could met the non-applicant/ wife so that he can pursue her and convince her to live with him happily accepting all the conditions which she would ask for restitution of marriage. 5. It is worthy to mention that on 25.07.2022 the present applicant appeared before the learned Family Court and the learned Family Court gave time to present applicant to file reply along with affidavit declaring the income and list of properties and fix the matter on 03.08.2022. On 03.08.2022 the learned Judge was on leave and 6 the matter was again fixed for 25.08.2022 for further orders. That since a strike was going on in the district courts the matter was not taken on 25.08.2022 and was fixed for 01.10.2022. On 01.10.2022 the counsel for both the parties appeared and requested that the applicant and the non-applicant/wife has not appeared due to health conditions and moved an application for adjournment, the learned Family Court accepted the application but the right of the present applicant to file reply to the application for maintenance and affidavit was closed and posted the matter for 10.10.2022. 6. On 10.10.2022, affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the non- applicant/wife was taken on record and fixed the matter for cross- examination on 19.10.2022. The learned counsel could not communicate the date of 19.10.2022 to the present applicant and on the said date itself it was communicated that the matter has been fixed for cross examination today, but the present applicant showed his inability to appear before the learned Family Court at such a short notice as he must come from Indore. On 19.10.2022 the present applicant was declared ex-parte without assigning any reason by the learned Family Court and further without considering the fact that the present applicant was regularly appearing before the Court, has declared the present applicant as ex-parte and posted the matter for final arguments on 01.11.2022 and on the said date the learned Family Court passed the order impugned. 7. The learned Family Court after declaring the present applicant ex- parte without assigning any reason has solely replying upon the pleading of the non-applicant/wife has partly allowed the application 7 under Section 125 Cr.P.C for grant of maintenance to the non- applicant No. 1 to the tune of Rs 10,000/-, to Non-applicant No. 2 Ishan Longiya to the tune of Rs 6,000/- till he attains majority and to Non-applicant No. 3/ Elisha Longiya to the tune of Rs 4,000 per month till her marriage totaling to Rs 20,000/-. In addition, awarded cost of litigation to the tune of Rs 3000/- to be paid to non-applicant/ wife by present applicant. Hence this revision. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court failed to consider that the present applicant has regularly appeared before the learned Family Court, and he has not deliberately avoided the service of notice and only due to health conditions has not appeared before the learned Family Court few times.The learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that the present applicant participated in the counselling proceedings and insisted non-applicant/wife to live along with him as one family and she has voluntarily deserted the house/ family of the present applicant therefore the non-applicant/wife should not be granted the maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has committed error in declaring the present applicant as ex-parte without considering the fact that he was appearing in the proceedings further vide order dated 19.10.2022 no reason has been assigned by the learned Family Court while declaring him ex- parte and without giving opportunity to cross-examine has passed the order impugned which is not permissible in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court committed error in accepting the contention raised by the non-applicant/wife in the application under Section 8 125 without subjecting the same to cross-examination and the income which the non-applicant/ wife has mentioned in the application is false and concocted, the actual fact is that the present applicant has been ousted from his own family members and the grand mother has executed a will where his father has only got a second floor of the building in which the joint family resides and at present mother of the present applicant is residing. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that non- applicant/wife has also mentioned in her application that the present applicant owns and runs a shop in the name of "Chip Jack "and from this shop he earns Rs. 40,000/- from the said shop but, vide abovementioned "Will" the said shop has already been transferred to his uncle and their children, not the present applicant. This shows the fact that a false and fabricate story has been mentioned in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has failed to consider the fact that the couple are married for a period of more than 15 years, and they have two children's, it is worthy to mention that the present applicant is still trying to convince the non-applicant/ wife to live peacefully with him, on her own terms and conditions, therefore the order impugned would adversely affect the compromise that may be arrived between the parties. Accordingly, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the concerned Family Court concerned after 9 considering all the documents and evidence placed on record, has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 11.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 12. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and documents available in record, decided the matter and passed the impugned order dated 01.11.2022 ex-parte, whereby it has partly allowed the application and the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 6000/- per month to the non-applicant No.2 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the Non-applicant No.3 (Total 20,000/- as maintenance). While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the non-applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non- applicants. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be on the higher side or inadequate in the given circumstances. 13. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned orders and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or 10 jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 14. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. 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