1 2025:CGHC:47334 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 434 of 2020 Smt. Chameli Bai W/o Chirounji Lal Namdev Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Adhbhar, P.S. And Tahsil Malkharoda, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus Chiranjiv Lal Namdev S/o Late Nankiram Namdev Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Amoda, P.S. And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Tuman, P.S. Urga, Tahsil Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Nilu Singh, holding the brief of Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 15 /09/2025 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Sakti, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.29/2007, whereby the Family Court rejected the application AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 under Section 125(3) of CrPC filed by the applicant for recovery of arrears of maintenance. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) seeking maintenance for herself, which was allowed vide order dated 06.03.2000. Despite the said order, the respondent failed to pay the maintenance amount, whereupon the applicant filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. in the year 2001, however, though notices and warrants were issued, the respondent did not appear and the applicant has not received any maintenance to date, the total arrears being approximately Rs.1,20,000/-, for which reason the learned Court issued an attachment warrant and directed the Collector Janjgir-Champa to attach the property of the respondent. When no effective action was taken, the learned Court, by orders dated 08.05.2014 and 10.09.2014, again directed the Collector to submit a compliance report after attachment of the property, and further issued a warrant of arrest to Police Station Janjgir for arrest of the respondent, which was received on 04.10.2016 but not executed. The proceedings remained pending with dates fixed from time to time and were lastly listed on 18.09.2019, when, after hearing the applicant, the learned Court rejected the case on the grounds that the applicant had remarried, the details of the respondent’s 3 property were not furnished, and that there was no provision to keep the matter pending indefinitely. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law. The Court failed to appreciate that the delay in execution was not attributable to the applicant but to the negligence of the revenue and police authorities, whose inaction prevented compliance with earlier directions. The applicant had already produced revenue records (khasra, panchshala) clearly showing that the respondent owns sufficient property capable of meeting the maintenance liability. The reasons recorded by the Court are therefore perverse, unsustainable, and against settled principles governing recovery of maintenance, resulting in grave prejudice to the applicant who has been wrongfully deprived of the maintenance amount. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court rejected the application under Section 125(3) of CrPC filed by the applicant for recovery of arrears of maintenance observing that Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. provides for issuance of a warrant to recover the maintenance amount and, in default, for imprisonment up to one month for each month’s default. The provision does not permit indefinite pendency of proceedings or repeated 4 imprisonment without fresh defaults. Moreover, under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., a wife is not entitled to maintenance from the date of her remarriage. The finding of the Family Court regarding the applicant’s remarriage has not been effectively rebutted. Further, the documents said to show respondent’s property were neither specific nor proved so as to enable execution. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil