1 2025:CGHC:60636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1160 of 2025 Nemichand Pandey S/o Late Govind Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Vishrampuri (Keshkal), Tahsil- Baderajpur, P.S. Vishrampuri, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Abhilasha Pandey W/o Nemichand Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Quarter No. 6b, Street No. S.P.A. Zone-3, Sector-11, Khursipar Bhilai, P.S. Khursipar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12 /12/2025 1. The applicant has 8led this criminal revision against the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Case No.22/2025 and ex-party order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) in criminal Case No. 658/2023 whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under order 9 rule 13 of the CPC 8led by the applicant. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent/wife 8led an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an application RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and an interim application before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- from the applicant. The parties had solemnized marriage on 03.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and thereafter lived together as husband and wife, and two children, a son and a daughter were born from the wedlock. The respondent alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment without any justi8able reason, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. She further pleaded that she has no independent source of income for her survival, whereas the applicant, working as a contractor and trading in Laghu Vanopaj, earns approximately Rs.3,00,000/- per month. On issuance of notice, the applicant 8led his reply denying all allegations and asserted that he was not liable to pay the claimed maintenance. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, in the absence of the applicant, passed an ex-parte order dated 26.07.2024 directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Aggrieved, the applicant 8led an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte order, submitting that he could not appear due to suEering from paralysis and because his amicus curiae, Mohan Sinha, was hospitalized for brain hemorrhage from 13.06.2024 to 11.07.2024 at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, for whose treatment and care the applicant was engaged. He contended that the ex-parte order was passed without aEording him an opportunity of hearing and without considering the material placed on record. The respondent 8led her reply denying 3 these averments. However, by order dated 07.04.2025, the learned Family Court rejected the applicant’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Hence, the present criminal revision has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and the facts on record, inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the genuine and suGcient cause shown by the applicant in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking recall of the ex parte maintenance order dated 26.07.2024. It is submitted that the applicant was suEering from paralysis, and his amicus curiae, Shri Mohan Sinha, was simultaneously undergoing treatment for brain hemorrhage at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur; owing to this critical medical situation, the applicant was unable to appear before the Court, which constituted a bona 8de and unavoidable reason for his absence. Despite this, the learned Family Court completely overlooked the medical condition of the applicant and passed the ex parte order without aEording any opportunity of hearing, without proper notice, and without due application of mind, which is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and the mandate of law. It is further submitted that the Family Court rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC mechanically and without considering the documents and material placed on record, thereby depriving the applicant of his valuable right to defend the proceedings on merits. It is urged that the applicant is entitled to participate in the maintenance proceedings and that the matter 4 ought to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities. Hence, the ex parte order dated 26.07.2024 as well as the order rejecting the recall application are illegal, erroneous, contrary to law, and liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court passed the ex parte order dated 26.07.2024 directing the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month without aEording him any opportunity of hearing, despite the applicant having shown suGcient cause for his non-appearance on account of his paralysis and the simultaneous critical medical condition of his amicus curiae, Shri Mohan Sinha, who was undergoing treatment for brain hemorrhage. The applicant thereafter preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking recall of the said ex parte order, supported with medical documents, but the learned Family Court rejected the application vide order dated 07.04.2025 in a mechanical manner without proper consideration of the material placed on record. By order dated 16.10.2025, this Court directed both parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on 08.12.2025. 5 In compliance, both parties appeared; the applicant also deposited a sum of Rs.50,000 as directed, but despite sincere eEorts, mediation failed. 7. In view of the mediation report and upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, this Court 8nds that the learned Family Court erred in declining to recall the ex parte order and failed to observed the principles of natural justice, thereby causing grave prejudice to the applicant, who has a valuable right to contest the proceedings on merits. The impugned order is therefore unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.04.2025, rejecting the applicant’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, as well as the ex parte order dated 26.07.2024, are hereby quashed set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Family Court concerned with a direction to aEord due opportunity to both parties and to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the certi8ed copy of this order to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan