1 2026:CGHC:5571 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 330 of 2024 Sanjay Kumar Ekka S/o Ram Prasad Ekka Aged About 40 Years Occupation- Job, R/o Village- Jaamjhariya, Thana And Tehsil- Sitapur, Dist. Sarguja, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - Samarth Kumar Ekka S/o Sanjay Kumar Ekka Aged About 9 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Smita Ekka W/o Sanjay Kumar Ekka, Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Job, R/o- Ward No. 19, Jaampara, Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea, C..G. 2 - Ku. Angil Ekka D/o Sanjay Kumar Ekka Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Smita Ekka W/o Sanjay Kumar Ekka, Aged About 38 Years Occupation- Job, R/o- Ward No. 19, Jaampara, Baikunthpur, Dist. Korea, C..G. ... Respondents For Applicant : Ms. Seema Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by learned Judge, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Family Court, Manendragarh Camp Baikunthpur, Distt.- Korea [C.G.] in Misc. Criminal Case no. 122/2022 and further while setting aside the ex-parte order may kindly be pleased to direct the learned Family court to give an opportunity to revisionist/non-applicant to file his written statement and to lead the evidence, in the interest of justice.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondents–children filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that the marriage between their parents, namely Sanjay Kumar Ekka and Smita Ekka, was solemnized on 29.12.2010 and that the respondents were born out of the said wedlock. It was pleaded that since 2017–18 the relationship between the parents became strained and the respondents are presently residing with their mother at Ward No.19, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), who is working as a teacher in a Government Higher Secondary School, Kenapara, and whose income is insufÏcient to meet their educational and other expenses. It was further averred that the applicant–father is working as Shikshakarmi Grade-III, posted at Government Boys Ashram, Dandpara, and is earning about Rs.30,000/- per month, therefore maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month each was claimed. Upon service of notice, the applicant appeared through counsel but failed to file reply, whereupon the learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte and by order dated 25.06.2022 allowed the application granting 3 maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each respondent. Thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order on the ground that due to distance of posting and negligence of his counsel he could not contest the proceedings; however, the said application was opposed by the respondents and dismissed by the learned Family Court holding that sufÏcient opportunity had been afforded to the applicant and that he remained negligent, and thus declined to set aside the ex-parte order dated 25.06.2022. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore liable to be modified/set aside. It is contended that the learned Court failed to properly appreciate the true scope and object of Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which clearly provides that an ex-parte order may be set aside for good cause shown, subject to such terms including payment of costs as the Court may deem fit. The said provision is required to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice and to afford a fair opportunity of hearing to the affected party. She further submits that the reasons assigned by the applicant in the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. clearly demonstrate that he was not deliberately negligent but was entirely dependent upon his counsel and was unaware of the progress of the legal proceedings, which constitutes sufÏcient cause within the meaning of the said provision. It is therefore urged that the learned 4 Court committed a material illegality in refusing to set aside the ex- parte order, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, upon due consideration of the pleadings and material available on record, has rightly held that the respondents– children, being minors, were entitled to maintenance from their father, who is gainfully employed and has sufÏcient means to support them. The record reflects that despite due service of notice, the applicant–father appeared through counsel but failed to file his reply or effectively contest the proceedings, and therefore the learned Family Court was justified in proceeding ex-parte. The order dated 25.06.2022 granting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each respondent cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable, keeping in view the status, income and obligations of the applicant as well as the educational and day-to-day needs of the children. Further, while considering the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., the learned Family Court correctly appreciated that sufÏcient opportunity had already been afforded to the applicant and that the grounds pleaded, namely distance of posting and alleged negligence of counsel, did not constitute “good cause” within the meaning of the provision so as to warrant setting aside the ex-parte order. The dismissal of the said application, therefore, reflects a proper and judicious exercise of discretion by the learned Family Court. 5 6. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant 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 this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan