1 2025:CGHC:29532 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 188 of 2019 Smt. Bindi Painkra W/o Premchand Painkra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jurgum, Post Kurgeg, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus Premchand Painkra S/o Vijay Panikra Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Jurgum, Post Kurgeg, Tahsil Bagicha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Another Address 160th Battalion, C.R.P.F., Police Jammu, At Present Address Now Known To The Applicant -219th Battalion, C.R.P.F. Village Injram, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. J.K. Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Saxena, learned counsel the applicant. Also heard Mr. A.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 and further be pleased to direct the learned Family Court, Jashpur for proceeding further in the case U/s 125(3) of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant by restoring it, in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Jashpur, seeking maintenance, which was allowed by order dated 23.05.2017, granting Rs. 7,500/- per month to the applicant with effect from 15.03.2017. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. for recovery of Rs. 75,000/- as arrears of unpaid maintenance for 10 months. Despite several attempts to serve notice upon the non-applicant including process fee payments on 07.06.2018 and 23.07.2018 the notices remained unserved. On 12.12.2018, the applicant was granted time to provide the correct address of the non-applicant, and again sought further time on 28.12.2018, which was denied, leading to the dismissal of the execution application. Subsequently, the applicant obtained the current address of the non-applicant through an RTI application filed before the Commandant, 160th Battalion, CRPF, Jammu, and received the information via letter dated 04.01.2019. Aggrieved by the dismissal of her application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., the applicant has preferred the present revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 passed by the learned Family Court is bad in law, perverse, arbitrary, and erroneous, and therefore deserves to be set aside. The Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant made sincere and repeated efforts to obtain the current address of the non-applicant, including complying with directions to pay process fees for issuance of notices, which were returned unserved. Despite the applicant’s genuine attempts and her request for additional time to furnish the correct address, the Family Court erroneously dismissed the application under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. instead of granting a reasonable extension. Furthermore, the applicant has now obtained the correct address of the non-applicant through an RTI application filed with the Commandant of the 160th Battalion, CRPF, and the information regarding the present posting of the non-applicant has been provided via letter dated 04.01.2019. It is also relevant that the address used in the execution proceedings was the same as that mentioned in the original application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., thus demonstrating that there was no deliberate delay or negligence on the part of the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the non- applicants opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the applicant and supports the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jashpur, District- Jashpur, (C.G.). 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order passed by the learned Family Court appears just and proper in view of the procedural requirements under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. Despite being granted adequate opportunities, the applicant failed to provide the correct address of the non-applicant for effective service of notice, which is a necessary step for the execution of maintenance orders. The Court showed due diligence by issuing notices twice and even granted the applicant additional time to furnish the updated address. However, no concrete progress was made by the applicant within the stipulated period. The Family Court cannot be faulted for declining further adjournments and dismissing the execution application, as it is expected to ensure expeditious disposal of proceedings. Though the applicant later obtained the address through RTI, this occurred only after the dismissal order, and the same may be the basis for a fresh application. Therefore, the Family Court acted within its jurisdiction and correctly exercised its discretion based on the facts available before it at the relevant time. 8. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by 5 this Court. 9. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 10. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan