1 CGHC010398272025 2026:CGHC:32133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1136 of 2025 Smt. Varsha @ Rama Ahirwar W/o Sukhnath Ahirwar Aged About 34 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 30 Years In The Impugned Order), R/o - House No. F- 2, Vishal Nagar, Telibandha, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Sukhnath Ahirwar S/o - Amritlal Ahirwar, Aged About 43 Years, Village And Post - Lormi, (Near Government College), P.S.- Lormi, Tehsil- Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.), Place Of Posting - Secretary, State Election Commission, Nirwachan Bhawan, Section 19, North Block, Naya Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Earlier Place of Posting Mentioned In Impugned Order) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel appearing, for the applicant also heard Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “A. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.30 18:38:56 +0530 2 the records of the case. B. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 04.08.2025 and dismiss the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 126(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. C. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. Facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant (wife) and the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 16.05.2010, and two daughters, presently aged about 13 years and 12 years, were born out of the said wedlock. The respondent was earlier posted as Additional Collector, Kanker, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, and is presently serving as Secretary, State Election Commission, Naya Raipur (C.G.). The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the respondent and his family members started harassing her immediately after the marriage. In the year 2012, the respondent was transferred to Sukma, while the applicant continued to reside at her matrimonial home at Lormi. During this period, the applicant came to know that the respondent was having an extramarital affair at his place of posting. When the applicant confronted the respondent regarding the same, he allegedly subjected her to physical abuse. Consequently, the applicant returned to her parental home at Raipur along with her daughters on 24.06.2015 and lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Raipur on 25.06.2015. Thereafter, upon reconciliation between the parties, the applicant resumed cohabitation with the respondent. However, owing to the continued harassment, she 3 again lodged a complaint with the police in the year 2017. On 30.11.2019, the respondent allegedly assaulted the applicant at his Government accommodation and took away both daughters to Lormi along with his parents. Consequently, the applicant lodged a complaint at Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, and has been residing separately since then. The applicant also lodged an FIR against the respondent under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Subsequently, the respondent entered into a compromise before the Court and took the applicant back to the matrimonial home. However, the respondent’s cruel behaviour continued, and the applicant has been living separately since 10.09.2022. Thereafter, the maintenance proceedings were registered as M.C.C. No. 820/2022. 4. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 06.10.2022, claiming maintenance from the respondent. Notice was served upon the respondent on 15.11.2022, however, he failed to appear before the Court, and accordingly, the proceedings were directed to proceed ex-parte against him. Thereafter, on 19.01.2023, an ex-parte judgment was passed, whereby maintenance was awarded in favour of the applicant. 5. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte judgment, which was registered as Civil M.J.C. No. 178/2023. Vide order dated 27.05.2023, the said application was allowed, and the case was restored to its original number. 6. Again on 15.09.2023, the counsel appearing for the respondent submitted before the learned trial Court that he had no instructions from the respondent. Consequently, the proceedings were once again 4 directed to proceed ex-parte against the respondent. It was also recorded by the learned trial Court that the respondent had instructed the same counsel to appear on his behalf in other matters pending before the same Court. Thereafter, on 05.10.2023, the respondent again filed an application seeking recall of the ex-parte proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the respondent was merely delaying the proceedings and misusing the process of law. 7. Vide judgment dated 27.10.2023, the learned trial Court allowed the applicant’s application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing of the application. 8. The learned trial Court had also earlier granted interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of the applicant while the respondent was duly appearing before the Court. 9. Thereafter, the respondent again filed an application dated 03.04.2024 under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment. The said application was registered as Case No. 474/2024. The respondent contended that he had already preferred FA (MAT) No. 280/2023 before the High Court seeking transfer of the proceedings and that, vide order dated 23.01.2024, Hon’ble Court had directed transfer of the matter to another Court. 10. The applicant filed a detailed reply to the aforesaid application along with an application opposing the prayer for condonation of delay, specifically highlighting the conduct of the respondent. The applicant also pointed out that the respondent had earlier been proceeded ex-parte on more than one occasion. 5 11. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent had filed FA (MAT) No. 280/2023 seeking transfer of the proceedings in M.C.C. No. 820/2022, M.J.C. No. 278/2023, and H.M.A. No. 859/2023, which were pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, to another competent Court at Raipur. The Hon’ble High Court granted stay of the said proceedings on 02.11.2023, i.e., only after the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (M.C.C. No. 820/2022) had already been finally decided on 27.10.2023. 12. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 23.01.2024, this Hon’ble Court allowed FA (MAT) No. 280/2023 and directed that the pending cases be transferred to another Court of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. However, by that time, M.C.C. No. 820/2022 had already stood finally decided on 27.10.2023. 13. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the respondent’s application under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 solely on the ground that this Hon’ble Court had passed an order directing transfer of the cases to another Court, despite the fact that such transfer order was passed only after the disposal of M.C.C. No. 820/2022 by the learned trial Court. 14. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had already been proceeded ex-parte on two earlier occasions and that his conduct had been specifically recorded by the learned trial Court. Furthermore, the respondent’s conduct in the proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly demonstrates that he has been consistently misusing the process of law and has no intention whatsoever of complying with the lawful directions passed by the Court. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent has 6 grossly misused the process of law despite being a Government servant holding a Class-I post. She submits that the respondent failed to disclose before this Hon’ble Court that the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had already been finally disposed of by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent had already been proceeded ex-parte on two earlier occasions and that his conduct had been specifically recorded by the learned trial Court. She further submits that the conduct of the respondent throughout the proceedings before the learned trial Court, including the proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, clearly demonstrates that he has been deliberately misusing the process of law and has no intention of complying with the lawful directions of the Court. The proviso to Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that where the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex-parte. It further provides that any such ex-parte order may be set-aside only upon sufficient cause being shown in an application made within three months from the date of the order, subject to such terms, including payment of costs to the opposite party, as the Magistrate may deem just and proper. She also submits that a perusal of the order sheets of the learned trial Court clearly establishes that the respondent was wilfully avoiding service and deliberately neglecting to appear before the Court. She submits that the respondent has failed to show any sufficient or bona fide cause for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings initiated against him. The applicant has been compelled to litigate for the last three years without receiving any 7 substantial maintenance from the respondent. During this period, the respondent has repeatedly filed applications for setting aside the ex- parte orders solely with a view to delaying the proceedings and frustrating the applicant’s legitimate claim for maintenance. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent, opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the applicant, without any justifiable reason, left the matrimonial home and failed to produce any evidence to rebut the allegations made in the divorce petition filed by the respondent. It is further submitted that, with an intention to harass the respondent, the applicant instituted proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 06.10.2022 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, seeking maintenance, which was registered as M.C.C. No. 820/2022. It is further submitted that notices in the said proceedings were issued to the respondent at his official address at Kanker, however, the same could not be served as the respondent was engaged in election duty. Despite non-service of notice, the learned Family Court, by order dated 15.11.2022, proceeded ex-parte against the respondent on the very first date after issuance of notice. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court, by final order dated 19.01.2023, awarded maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of the applicant. Thereafter, during the proceedings in the divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 pending before the learned District Judge, Mungeli, the applicant produced a copy of the said ex-parte maintenance order dated 19.01.2023. 17. Learned Senior Advocate submits that immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the ex-parte order dated 19.01.2023, the respondent filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Order IX 8 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recall of the ex parte order. Since the learned Family Court did not allow the said application, the respondent preferred CRR No. 389/2023 before this Hon'ble Court, which, by order dated 08.05.2023, directed the trial Court to decide the application expeditiously. It is further submitted that, in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Court, the learned Family Court, by order dated 27.05.2023, allowed the respondent's application under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.01.2023, and restored the maintenance proceedings for fresh hearing. 18. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that after restoration of the proceedings, the matter was listed on 24.06.2023. However, according to the respondent, he was not treated fairly by the learned Family Court and apprehended prejudice on account of the conduct of the Court. Consequently, the respondent filed an application under Section 24 of the CPC seeking transfer of the case to another competent Family Court within the district. It is further submitted that the respondent's transfer application was rejected by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, by order dated 04.07.2023. Thereafter, on 07.07.2023, the learned Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month in favour of the applicant without duly considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent. He submits that when the matter was listed on 15.09.2023, due to a communication gap between the respondent and his counsel, no one could appear on his behalf. Consequently, the learned Family Court proceeded ex-parte against the respondent on the same day. It is further submitted that the respondent again filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. read with Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings 9 by explaining the circumstances leading to his non-appearance. However, the learned Family Court rejected the said application. 19. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that, in the meantime, the respondent challenged the order dated 04.07.2023 by filing F.A. (MAT) No. 280/2023 before this Hon'ble Court. By order dated 02.11.2023, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to issue notice and stay the further proceedings in all pending disputes between the parties, including M.C.C. No. 820/2022. It is further submitted that the applicant entered appearance in F.A. (MAT) No. 280/2023 by filing her Vakalatnama on 06.11.2023. The said appeal was finally disposed of by order dated 23.01.2024, whereby this Hon'ble Court directed transfer of all pending proceedings between the parties, including M.C.C. No. 820/2022, to another competent Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. 20. Learned Senior Advocate also submits that during the pendency of F.A. (MAT) No. 280/2023, the parties were referred to mediation by this Hon'ble Court. However, the mediation failed as the applicant allegedly demanded Rs. 1 Crore as permanent alimony. According to the respondent, a similar demand had also been made during the mediation proceedings before the Family Court, which, according to him, reflects the applicant's intention of extracting money from the respondent. It is further submitted that although the applicant had appeared before this Hon'ble Court on 06.11.2023 and actively participated in the proceedings, she did not disclose that M.C.C. No. 820/2022 had already been finally decided by the learned Family Court on 27.10.2023, whereby maintenance at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month had been awarded in her favour. 21. Learned Senior Advocate submits that after this Hon'ble Court passed the order dated 23.01.2024 in F.A. (MAT) No. 280/2023, the respondent 10 appeared before the learned Family Court and came to know about the ex-parte judgment dated 27.10.2023. Thereafter, he once again filed an application under Section 126(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 27.10.2023 and restoration of the matter for fresh adjudication. It is further submitted that the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, after issuing notice to the applicant and hearing both the parties, allowed the respondent's application by order dated 04.08.2025 and consequently set aside the ex-parte order dated 27.10.2023. 22. Learned Senior Advocate lastly submits that the order dated 04.08.2025 has been passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, after due consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is contended that the impugned order is legal, well-reasoned, and does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or irregularity warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 23. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 24. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the material available on record, it transpires that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties and upon proper appreciation of the facts and evidence available on record. It further appears that although the applicant had appeared before this Court in F.A. (MAT) No. 280/2023 and participated in the proceedings, she did not disclose the material fact that M.C.C. No. 820/2022 had already been finally decided on 27.10.2023 and that an ex parte order granting maintenance of Rs. 40,000/- per month had already 11 been passed in her favour. Such suppression of a material fact clearly indicates that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands. It also transpires from the record that, pursuant to the impugned order, the maintenance proceedings have already been restored and are presently at the stage of cross-examination of the applicant, the matter being fixed for 12.08.2026 before the concerned learned Family Court. Since the trial is already in progress and this Court does not find any illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 25. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek