1 CGHC010254082026 2026:CGHC:30450 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 895 of 2026 Babu Lal S/o Jagga Aged About 39 Years (Now Aged About 43 Years), Caste - Gond, R/o Village - Mulmula, Ward No. 01, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Ram Bai W/o Babu Lal Aged About 41 Years (Now Aged About 45 Years), Caste Gond, R/o Village Mulmula, Ward No. 01, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 17.07.2026 1. Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the present criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 11.05.2026 whereby the learned Family Court, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), rejected the application filed by the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.20 18:08:30 +0530 2 petitioner for setting aside the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the non-applicant before the learned Family Court, wherein an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. is being prosecuted by the present respondent for recovery of the maintenance amount. He would submit that the original order granting maintenance was passed on 04.06.2015, by which the present respondent was granted maintenance of a total sum of Rs.2,100/- per month for the respondent-wife and her children. Since the petitioner failed to pay the maintenance amount to the respondent-wife, she filed an application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. for recovery of the arrears of maintenance on 23.11.2022. He would further submit that the recovery application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the order and, therefore, the recovery of the entire arrears of maintenance cannot be made by way of an application which has been filed after such a long delay. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner is erroneous and the same is liable to be set aside. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 4. Passing of the order dated 04.06.2015 granting maintenance of Rs.2,100/- per month to the respondent-wife and her children is 3 not in dispute and even the petitioner could not dispute that the said order has neither been challenged nor modified by any superior Court. The challenge made by the petitioner is only with respect to its recovery. Since the order granting maintenance has not been challenged, the learned Family Court is required to proceed with the recovery proceedings on the application made by the respondent-wife, which it is presently doing. 5. Considering that the order granting maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife is a beneficial order, mere technicality of limitation cannot come in the way of depriving her of the maintenance amount when the petitioner-husband has failed to discharge his matrimonial obligation and to comply with the order passed by the learned Family Court granting maintenance. Therefore, the recovery proceedings in respect of the said maintenance amount cannot be stopped. From a perusal of the order passed by the learned Family Court, I do not find any illegality or perversity warranting interference with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Manpreet