1 2025:CGHC:54082 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3333 of 2025 1 - Rohit Singh S/o Narendra Singh Aged About 37 Years R/o 15-C/12, M-1 Harvara, Dhumanganj, Allahabad (Prayagraj) U.P. Presently At- 195 Battalion, B S F, Sirligudi (W.B.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Komal Singh W/o Rohit Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o House No. 02, Ashoka Lifestyle, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 494001, Other Address- Smt. Komal Singh @ Komal Varma, Aged 33 Years, Through Smt. Sunita Singh (Parshad), R/o Flat No. 102, Bajpayi Building, Adawaal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 494001. 2 - Shivas Singh S/o Rohit Singh Aged About 9 Years Through Next In Mother Smt. Komal Singh, R/o House No. 02, Ashoka Lifestyle, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 494001, Other Address- Smt. Komal Singh @ Komal Varma, Aged 33 Years, Through Smt. 2 Sunita Singh (Parshad), R/o Flat No. 102, Bajpayi Building, Adawaal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar C.G. 494001. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying for a direction to send the record of case number MJC/657/14, titled as “Smt. Komal Singh & Anr. vs. Rohit Singh” back to the court which tried and decided the case so that it can further hear the application filed by the petitioner under Section 126 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside of the ex-parte final order and an opportunity to be heard. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 had filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (MJC/657/14) before the learned 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, C.G. which was heard and decided ex-parte against the petitioner on 06.11.2015. against the said ex-parte 3 order, the petitioner herein preferred an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. before the learned Trial Court in which the respondents have appeared and have filed their reply also, however, the learned Trial Court has not been able to decide the said application for want of its record which is currently under custody of this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has prima facie good case for setting aside of ex-parte order and re-hearing of the matter as the notices/summons issued by the trial Court were not so issued in compliance with Order V Rule 28 of the CPC which mandates that any summons issued to a soldier, sailor or an airman shall be sent through the commanding officer. He further contended that since this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 12.11.2018 had called for the record of the trial court and since then the record is kept in custody of this Hon’ble Court, the learned Trial Court is unable to proceed with the application preferred by the petitioner and as demonstrated above, the petitioner has good cause for his absence which was bonafide and not deliberate. He further contended that CRR No. 882/2018 has been disposed of by this Court and no other proceedings are pending before this Hon’ble Court in which the Court may require the record of the trial court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 4 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Registry is directed to verify the aforesaid facts and do needful in accordance with the rules. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima