1 2025:CGHC:53578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 788 of 2025 Amit Mittal S/o Bharat Bhushan Mittal Aged About 40 Years R/o Vishal Enterprises, N.H. No. 6, Takiya Ward, Nagpur- Road Bhandara, Bhandara (Maharashtra) Pin 441904 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shail Mittal W/o Amit Mittal Aged About 36 Years R/o Hall Mukam Through Father Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Khandelwal Colony, Madhuban Vatika Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.). 2 - Sarthi Mittal S/o Amit Mittal Aged About 12 Years Through Non- Applicant No. 1 (Mother) R/o Hall Mukam Through Father Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Khandelwal Colony, Madhuban Vatika Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.). 3 - Jiya Mittal D/o Amit Mittal Aged About 9 Years Through Non- Applicant No. 1 (Mother) R/o Hall Mukam Through Father Vinod Kumar Agrawal, Khandelwal Colony, Madhuban Vatika Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents {Cause title, as taken from CIS} For Petitioner : Ms. Vaishali Jaswani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Prasoon agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 03/11/2025 1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by first Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Case No. 485 2 of 2019, whereby, an application filed by the petitioner to summon Dr. S.K. Denge and Rekha alias Pooja in order to prove that the respondent was imparting tuition was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed by the respondents against the petitioner, which was registered as Criminal MJC No. 485 of 2019. She submits that the reply to the said application has also been filed by the petitioner and he came to know that the respondent No. 1 imparting education and in this respect he had talked with one Pooja @ Rekha. The recording between them was reduced in writing and the same was filed alongwith the certificate under Section 65(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and report of Dr. S.K. Denge was also produced. She submits that in order to strengthen his case and to prove on record the respondent No. 1 imparting education that would bring the factual criteria with regard to financial conditions of the respondents and in that event, the petitioner happens to prove that the respondent No. 1 was also earing by way of imparting tuition, the amount of maintenance may be reduced. Learned Family Court, without considering the aforesaid facts, has illegally rejected the said application and denied the petitioner to call these two above witnesses and to examine in his favour. She further submits that initially, the petitioner was paying Rs.17,000/- pm as maintenance to respondent Nos. 1 & 2, however, after respondent No. 2 attained the age of majority at present Rs. 14,000/- has been paid as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 would have all the right to cross-examine the witnesses therefore, no prejudice would be caused if these two witnesses were permitted to be examined by the petitioner in support of his defence. 3 3. Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for respondents submits that the petitioner had all opportunities to call these witnesses during the course of proceedings before the learned Family Court, but he failed to do so and after about laps of about 10 months, the application has been filed to call those witnesses and, thus, learned Family Court has rightly rejected the said application. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not in dispute that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is pending consideration before the learned Family Court. It is also not in dispute that initially Rs. 17,000/- was being paid by the petitioner to the respondents as interim maintenance and at present Rs. 14000/- is being paid to the respondent No. 1 as interim maintenance. The defence put-forth by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 is having sufficient means to maintain herself and respondent No. 2 and for that purposes he had filed certain documents to demonstrate that there was a talk going between the witness Rekha @ Pooja and the respondent No. 1. The petitioner in order to prove his defence wanted to call those witnesses, therefore, taking into consideration the submissions made herein above, and also considering that the in order to ascertain the financial condition of respondent No. 1 the witnesses may be necessary to be examined. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to examine Dr. S. K. Denge and Rekha @ Pooja as witnesses in support of its defence. 7. Ms. Jaswani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court may be directed to issue summons to those witnesses for 4 their examination. 8. As this Court has already set aside the impugned order and permitted the petitioner to examine those witnesses either by calling themselves or calling by them by issuance of notice, this aspect would be looked into by the learned Family Court. 9. At this stage, Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent submits that application for maintenance is pending since 2019, the Family Court may be directed to conclude the same within reasonable time. 10. It is expected that the learned Family Court would expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a reasonable period of time subject to cooperation of the parties. 11. With the aforesaid direction/observation this writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.13 17:49:22 +0530