1 CGHC010066882025 2026:CGHC:37427 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 239 of 2025 Rizwan Khan S/o Irfan Khan Aged About 29 Years R/o H.No. 1182, Gabdiya, Sultanpur, Distt. Sultanpur (U.P.) Presently R/o Near Gausiya Maszid, Azad Mohalla, Camp-1, Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus Muskan Bano W/o Rizwan Khan Aged About 25 Years R/o Dedar Studio Jalebi Chowk, Camp-1, Bhilai, Tehsil And Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Particulars Of Parties As Per Impugned Order) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jha, Advocate appeared through video conferencing. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20 /0 8 /202 6 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.08.21 10:49:34 +0530 2 No.1183/2023, whereby, the learned Family Court rejected the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision are that the respondent filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, alleging that she was married to the applicant on 22.03.2019 and was thereafter residing with him at Kailash Nagar, Bhilai, but the applicant used to assault her and drove her out of the matrimonial house on 17.04.2019, leaving her without any source of income. The proceedings were registered as Criminal Case No. 1063/2021, wherein the learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against the applicant on 12.04.2022, treating the notice returned with the endorsement “Refused” as duly served, and thereafter, vide order dated 09.09.2022, awarded maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to the respondent. Subsequently, during recovery proceedings in M.J.C. No.135/2023, the applicant came to know about the ex parte order and deposited Rs.2,64,000/- in various instalments. The applicant thereafter filed an application under Section 126(3) Cr.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte order, which was rejected by the learned Family Court on the ground that the applicant failed to show sufficient cause for the delay and to establish that the notice had not been duly served upon him. Hence, the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the applicant’s 3 application for setting aside the ex parte maintenance order on the ground of delay, without properly appreciating that the notice issued in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was never actually served upon the applicant and was returned with the endorsement “Refused”. The applicant was residing outside the State of Chhattisgarh during the relevant period and had no knowledge of the proceedings. He further submits that the applicant was denied a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings and establish his defence, including his specific contention that he was never married to the respondent. The proceedings having been conducted ex parte, the applicant could not place the relevant facts and evidence before the learned Family Court. The principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem require that the applicant be afforded an effective opportunity of hearing. He also submits that the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, despite the applicant having already deposited a substantial amount of Rs.2,64,000/- towards maintenance. The impugned order has consequently caused serious prejudice to the applicant and is contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and fair hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the 4 documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with criminal revision. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court rejected the application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking setting aside of the ex parte order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Criminal Case No.1063/2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Court held that the applicant had failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for the delay of 230 days and had also failed to establish that the notice issued in the original proceedings was not duly served upon him. It was further found that the notice had been sent to his correct and permanent address and was returned with the endorsement “Refused”. The Court also observed that the applicant had acquired knowledge of the ex parte order at least on 14.06.2023 when he was arrested pursuant to the levy warrant, but failed to take appropriate steps within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay and setting aside of the ex parte order was rejected. 7. Considering the submissions 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 5 Family Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti