2025:CGHC:16566 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227) No. 1062 of 2025 Govind Pardhan S/o Shri Ganeshram Pardhan Aged About 46 Years Govt. Employee, R/o H.No. 719, Chandmari Near School, Ward No. 9 Chandmari,raigarh, Thana And Tehsil- Raigarh,district Raigarh C.G. ---- Petitioner Versus 1 - Seema Pardhan W/o Govind Pardhan Aged About 51 Years House Wife, R/o H.No. 719, Chandmari Near School, Ward No. 9 Chandmari,raigarh, Thana And Tehsil- Raigarh,district Raigarh C.G. 2 - Suman Pardhan D/o Govind Pardhan Aged About 22 Years Student, R/o H.No. 719, Chandmari Near School, Ward No. 9 Chandmari,raigarh, Thana And Tehsil- Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Niraj Baghel, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order/communication dated 12/09/2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Raigarh in Misc. Criminal Case No. F. 100/2021 by which an application under order 14 (3) of the CPC was allowed and certain documents were permitted to be brought on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents have filed an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C against the petitioner seeking maintenance. During pendency of the said application, the application for bringing documents was filed which was allowed by the impugned order. He further submits that the application cannot be allowed ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.11.19 10:59:26 +0530 -2- after considerable period of time and the documents may not be necessary for the adjudication of the the application for maintenance. The learned Family Court has not assign any adequate reason for allowing the said application. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Perusal of the record would indicate that the respondents has filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC seeking for maintenance. Perusal of the application filed under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC indicates that the certain documents have been filed in respect to the documents which were not at the existence at the filing of the application. The document indicates that certain complaint were made by the respondent against the petitioner, therefore it could not be filed earlier. The learned Family Court after due appreciation of the reasons mentioned in the application and also hearing the parties allowed the documents which does not appears to be perverse or illegal. This Court does not find any merits in this petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 6. All the pending applications are also disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish