1 2025:CGHC:58428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 995 of 2022 Anujram Sidar S/o Hemlal Sidar Aged About 31 Years R/o Bajnipali Post - Salheona Police Station Sariya Tehsil - Baramkela District - Raigarh (C.G) Current R/o House Father In Children Observation Home, Near New Dhaba, Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Smt. Manorma Sahu W/o Anujram Sidar Aged About 33 Years R/o Bajnipali Post - Salheona Police Station Sariya Tehsil - Baramkela District - Raigarh (C.G.) Current R/o Village - Patrapali Post - Kotarliya Police Station Chakradhar Nagar Tehsil and District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. The applicant/husband has filed this criminal revision against the order dated order dated 01/08/2022 passed in Criminal MJC No. F09/2020 passed by Learned Family Court, Raigarh (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the abovementioned Learned Family Court in Criminal MJC No. 133/2019. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.12.03 18:11:03 +0530 2 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the applicant and the respondent were employed in the same government-supported organization, Unnayak Seva Samiti, Padripani, District Raigarh (C.G.). Working under the same authority, they came into close contact on several occasions. After resolving certain personal disputes, they decided to marry. The applicant and the respondent solemnized their marriage on 05.10.2017 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Raipur (C.G.) in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. After some years of marriage, disputes arose between them, leading to the respondent’s transfer and her departure from the matrimonial home on account of alleged torment by the applicant. After the respondent left, the applicant became depressed due to the breakdown of his matrimonial life and tendered his resignation on 01.07.2018. Despite living separately, the respondent continued to harass the applicant. On 11.09.2019, the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance on various grounds. She stated in her application that the applicant had a limited source of income, despite knowing that he was unemployed and suffering from mental distress following the breakdown of the marriage. The application was filed on false and misleading facts. The learned Family Court, Raigarh admitted the respondent’s application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and issued notice to the applicant. The applicant appeared on 21.11.2019 and continued to attend the proceedings, except for a two-month period during which he could not appear. Consequently, on 07.01.2020, the learned Court passed an ex-parte order directing payment of ₹3,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. On 09.01.2020, the applicant filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. seeking an opportunity to be 3 heard and to adduce evidence. The learned Family Court admitted the application and issued notice to the respondent. The respondent appeared on 12.02.2020 and proceedings were conducted. However, soon thereafter, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a nationwide lockdown, including the closure of Courts. Although the Family Courts resumed limited functioning in January 2021, the pandemic situation continued. Due to these difficulties, the applicant could not appear before the Court, and on 06.03.2021 his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution during the peak period of the pandemic. The applicant thereafter filed a Criminal Revision challenging the said order. The revision was registered as CRR No. 409/2021. This Hon’ble Court was pleased to admit the revision and, by order dated 07.07.2021, set aside the order of the Family Court, directing as follows: “In view of the above, the criminal revision is allowed. The order dated 06.03.2021 rejecting the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. for want of prosecution is set aside. M.J.C. (Cr.) No. F-07/2020 [Anujram Sidar v. Manorama Sahu] shall be restored to its original number and decided on merits after granting due opportunity of hearing to both parties, in accordance with law.” Despite the clear directions of this Hon’ble Court, the learned Family Court failed to appreciate or comply with the said directions. It did not conduct the matter from the initial stage as mandated, even though its earlier order had been set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/husband submits that the orders passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh are contrary to law and liable to be set aside/quashed in accordance with the principles of 4 natural justice. The learned Court failed to appreciate the true scope and object of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which not only empowers the Court to hear and determine maintenance claims but also authorizes it to set aside its earlier orders where circumstances so warrant. In the present case, the Family Court inconsistently held that the applicant and the respondent cannot be treated as husband and wife, yet proceeded to pass the impugned order. The respondent herself is unwilling to reside peacefully with the applicant. She left the matrimonial home without informing anyone and subsequently filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from her unemployed husband, despite being a government employee herself. Her conduct clearly reflects an intention to harass the applicant. The learned Family Court committed a legal error in passing the impugned order without properly examining the circumstances and without granting the applicant an opportunity to place relevant material and evidence on record. The applicant has consistently submitted that he has no income and is unable to pay any maintenance to the respondent. Every matrimonial relationship experiences disputes, disagreements, and emotional imbalance. However, such issues do not justify the respondent’s extreme actions, nor do they entitle her to misuse the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. to penalize or harass the applicant and his family. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the 5 learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 7. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the Family Court concerned within a week for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti