1 2025:CGHC:10696 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 795 of 2025 1 - Satish Verma S/o Late V.N. Verma Aged About 36 Years R/o Santoshi Ward Near Ramdev Mandir, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Smt. Sharmila Verma W/o Satish Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Santoshi Ward Near Ramdev Mandir, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus 1 - Smt. Ampi Verma @ Savitri Verma W/o Late V.N. Verma Aged About 65 Years R/o Santoshi Ward, Near Ramdev Mandri, Kumharpara, Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Advocate For Respondent : None. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/03/2025 1. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 11.02.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Family Judge, Bastar National Lok Adalat, Khand Peeth No.2 District – Bastar (C.G) in VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2025.05.19 12:37:06 +0530 2 Criminal MJC No. 01 of 2023, order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No. 135 of 2024, this appeal is being filed. 2. Brief facts of the case, are that the case in brief is that, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of CRPC before the learned Family Court Bastar against the petitioner No.1 and the learned family Court in the lok-adalat has passed the order for maintenance of Rs.20,000/-per month as the matter has been compromised vide its impugned order dated 11-02-2023 (Annexurè A-1). It is respectfully submitted by the petitioners that the matter has not been compromised by the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 has made signature due to drunken stage the said signature has been prepared, therefore the order dated 11-02-2023 is itself illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set-aside. The award passed by the learned family Court is without knowledge of petitioner No.2 and when the petitioner No.2 got the knowledge she made objection before the learned family Court on 17-10-2024. The learned family Court without appreciating the facts and objection made by the petitioner No.2, has rejected the objection filed by the petitioner No.2 05/02/2025 vide its impugned order dated (28-01-2025). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the brother of petitioner No.1 is also residing with the respondent and on the pressure of the brother of petitioner No.1, the present maintenance application was filed and the respondent is having three floors building and given on rent and is getting more rent 3 amount of about Rs.50,000/- per month He also submits that the petitioners are also having one school going child and the salary of petitioner No.1 is coming in the joint family account of petitioners and the petitioners are having joint account and there is no information given to the petitioner No.2 regarding the deduction of the maintenance amount in favour of respondent. He also submits that the petitioner No.1 has never signed in the compromise deed in the Lok-dalalat, therefore the order dated 11-02-2023 is itself illegal and arbitrary and therefore, liable to be quashed and the petitioner is reserving his right to raise any other grounds and to file the documents at the time of hearing of the case. He further submits that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bastar against the petitioner No.1 and the learned Family Court in the Lok Adalat has passed the order for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month as the matter has been compromised, why did impugned order dated 11.02.2023 (Annexure-A/1). He further submits that petitioner No.1 has not been compromised by the respondent and petitioner No.1 has made signature due to drunken stage, the said signature has been prepared therefore, the order dated 11.02.2023 is itself illegal and arbitrary and liable to be sati-side. Petitioner No.2 has made objection before the Family Court on 17.10.2024, which has been dismissed by the learned Family Court. He lastly submits that the order dated 11.02.2023 as well as the order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned trial Court are 4 illegal, improper and not sustainable according to law and liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below, is proper, legal and strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity or illegality in the same. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the final report, charge sheet and other documents annexed to the petition. 6. In Criminal MJC No. 01 of 2023 on 04.02.2023, petitioner No.1 Satish Verma (Non-applicant) therein was appeared in the Court and the matter was adjourned for compromised on 11.02.2023 before National Lok Adalat. On 11.02.2023 the following order has been passed. // आदेश // ( लोक - अदे लोत खण्डपीठ क्र .2 द्वा रा पी रिरात आदेश ) "उभयपीक्ष क मध्य आपीसी रा जीना म हो जी ना तथा सीमझौ"त ना म क अना#सी रा अना वेदेक क्र.1 (सीतश वेम %) द्वा रा प्रतितम हो आवेदिदेक क भराण-पीषण एवे, चि.तिकत्सी होत# प्रतितम हो क0 5 त रिराख तक रू. 20,000/- (बीसी होजी रा रूपीय) वेतना सी कटौ"त करा आवेदिदेक क बी4क ख त म5. जीम करागा । अत8 उपीराक्त रा जीना म क आधा रा पीरा उभयपीक्ष द्वा रा प्रकराण सीम प्त तिकय जी ना क तिनावेदेना पीरा प्रकराण सीम प्त तिकय गाय ।" 7. Thereafter, respondent No.1 who is mother of the petitioner No.1 has been filed an application under Section 144(3) of BNSS for recovery of maintenance amount in MJC No.01 of 2023, but petitioner No.01 (Satish Verma) has not appeared before the learned Family Court and petitioner No.02 (Smt. Sharmila Verma) has appeared through his counsel and raised objection. Learned Family Court has rejected the said objection on the 5 basis of that the challenge to the Lok Adalat can be done only by filing a writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution in the High Court and that-to very limited ground. Petitioner No.1 has not objected the award of the National Lok Adalat dated 11.02.2023 and petitioner has not filed any writ petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 Constitution of India before this Court. There is no error committed by the trial Court, hence, instant petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. This Court clarify that observations made in this order are prima facie and based on charge sheet and not the correctness of the allegations made in the charge-sheet, the trial Court is not to be influenced at all by findings/observations while deciding the case on merits. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE vaishali