2025:CGHC:49943 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1514 of 2019 Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Jagatram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Bankimongra Near Shaktinagar Weekly Market, Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus Smt. Sunita Sahu W/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 27 Years Occupation Housewife, Resident Of N.T.P.C. Jamnipali, Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : None appears For Respondent : None appears ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. From perusal of the order-sheets, it transpires that when the matter was listed for hearing before this Court on 07.07.2025, 09.09.2025, and on 22.09.2025, no one appears on behalf of the applicants to argue the present revision. 2. Since the matter is of the year 2019 this Court deems it appropriate to decide this revision by invoking the provisions of Section 444 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 403 of the CRPC). Though all the procedural laws have as its foundation the maxim “Audi Alteram Partem” and at all stages wherever the need be there are provisions for issuance of notice Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.09 10:37:53 +0530 Crr 1514 of 2019 2 and making sure that the party may be heard before passing of any order, yet, as per the specific provisions of Section 444 of BNSS (Section 403 of the CRPC), it is clear that a party may or may not be heard, as the Court may decide while exercising its power of revision. Since no one appeared on behalf of the applicant on repeated occasions, this Court proceeds to decide the Criminal revision. 3. The provisions of Section 444 of BNSS (Section 403 of CRPC) do not violate the principles of natural justice. See “Mahabir Motor Co., Bhagalpur v. State of Bihar and Others” (AIR 1956 Pat. 437), “Sau. Ranjana Shivaji Rakhpasare v. Shivaji Bapu Rakhpasare and Another” (2004 Cri.L.J. 145), and “Panatar Arvindbhai Ratilal Vs State of Gujrat and others” (1991) 1 GLR451. 4. Present revision is filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 04.10.2019, passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora in CRA-79 of 2019, whereby the application filed by the applicant under Section 389 of the CrPC was rejected. 5. It emerges from the documents annexed with present revision that an order has been passed on 19.08.2019 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District-Korba in Criminal Case-22 of 2017, granting relief to the respondent, and restrained the present applicant and his family members from dispossession of the present respondent from the shared household, and also granted Rs.4,000/- per month monetary relief in favour of the respondent. The said order was challenged by the present applicant before the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora in CRA-79 of 2019, and an application Crr 1514 of 2019 3 was filed under Section 389 of the CrPC for grant of stay in the execution of impugned order dated 19.08.2019, which was rejected by the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 04.10.2019, aggrieved by which, the applicant has filed the present Criminal Revision. 6. Applicant has substantively challenged the order of granting monetary relief to the respondent, which is payment of Rs.4,000/- per month, in addition to whatever granted to her in maintenance proceeding. 7. From perusal of the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that there is no irregularity or illegality in the orders impugned, as the learned Courts below have rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the earning capacity of the applicant, and accordingly granted monetary relief in favour of the respondent. 8. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, and accordingly, present revision petition is dismissed. 9. Interim order granted earlier in favour of the applicant stands vacated. 10. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned trial Court for compliance, and further action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma