1 2025:CGHC:27212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 412 of 2017 Gulab Singh Rajput S/o Shri Tezasingh Rajput Aged About 46 Years R/o Dabrapara, Kargiroad, Kota District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Maya Singh Rajput W/o Gulab Singh Rajput Aged About 29 Years R/o Dabrapara, Kargiroad, Kota District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chandan Singh Rajput S/o Shri Gulab Singh Rajput Aged About 9 Years R/o Dabrapara, Kargiroad, Kota District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicants : None present Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 MJC NO. 444/2016.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 was married to the applicant in the year 2006 at Kargi Road, Kota and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No.2 (child) was born on 03.05.2008. From the initial days of marriage, the applicant began harassing non- applicant No.1 for dowry. In January 2012, the applicant assaulted her severely, causing injuries on various parts of her body. A police report regarding the said incident was also lodged at the concerned police station. It is further alleged that the applicant is addicted to alcohol and under its influence, used to subject non-applicant No.1 to physical violence. Previously, on 10.10.2013, the applicant had filed a divorce petition, during the pendency of which, a compromise was arrived at, and the non-applicants started residing with him again. However, on 11.12.2013, the applicant once again assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. She has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant works as a driver and earns approximately ₹15,000 to ₹20,000 per month. Due to lack of financial difficulties, she along with her minor child, filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant/husband. 4. The applicant appeared before the Court after service of notice and also participated in the counselling proceedings. However, from the hearing dated 26.08.2015 onwards, he remained continuously absent. Consequently, on 07.10.2015, ex-parte proceedings were 3 initiated against him due to his failure to appear. Therefore, no written reply or response has been submitted on his behalf in this matter. 5. Learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, decided the matter on ex-parte and passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2016, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 3500/-) from the date of passing of the order and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant preferred an application under section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of Limitation Act, before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur challenging the order dated 23.01.2016, and the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, after appreciating the documents and material available on record, dismissed the same. Hence, this revison. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is a driver in private capacity and has his parents dependent upon him and is in a financial crisis due to no work. He further submits that the applicant has always abided by the law and has duly appeared before the Court as per the date scheduled and subsequently participated in the counselling but to no avail. He further submits that on account of the failure of the advocate of the present applicant to inform about the proceeding the applicant for bonafide reason failed to appear before the learned court below and 4 thereafter, the learned court below passed an ex- parte order against the present applicant granting maintenance of Rs. 3500/- towards the non-applicants. He also submits that it was to the shock of the applicant that the advocate for the applicant despite of having been appointed as government advocate never informed the applicant about same. That upon calling the junior of the advocate it was informed that the applicant need not to come and therefore the applicant bonafidely thought the case to have been disposed off. Thereafter, when the application for execution of maintenance order was moved by the respondent herein and a notice was issued against the applicant, it came to the knowledge of the applicant that an order has been passed against him as ex-parte for award of Rs. 3500/- per month. The information of the said execution proceeding in pursuance of the maintenance order passed against the applicant, was brought to the notice of the applicant through his brother who received the said notice. Thereafter, the applicant went to inquire about the same to the Court below. It was to the shock of the applicant that the said order was passed ex-parte for no fault of the applicant herein. The applicant moved an application before the learned Court below under section 126(2) of code of criminal procedure 1973 and section 5 of limitation act for stay upon the proceeding of execution and setting aside the ex-parte maintenance order for equitable justice. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 5 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, decided the matter ex-parte and passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2016, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 3500/-) from the date of passing of the order and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant preferred an application under section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of Limitation Act, before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur challenging the order dated 23.01.2016, and the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, after appreciating the documents and material available on record, dismissed the same. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and also considering the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court concerned. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal