1 CGHC010085772026 2026:CGHC:37890 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 363 of 2026 1 - Ruksana Begam D/o Moh. Riyas W/o Moh. Taiyyab Rizavi Aged About 26 Years Occupation Grihkary, R/o Ward 15, Durjabandpara Pandria, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Kashmira Rizavi D/o Moh. Taiyyab Rizavi Aged About 3 Years Through Mother Ruksana Begam, Aged About 26 Years D/o Moh. Riyas W/o Moh. Taiyyab Rizavi, Occupation Grihkary, R/o Ward 15, Durjabandpara Pandria, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus Moh. Taiyyab Rizavi S/o Moh. Jahir Khan Aged About 35 Years Jati Momin, R/o At Present Padi Road Alipur Khar, Pandaria, P.S. Pandaria, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 24 /08/2026 1. Heard Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants. None appeared for the non-applicant on repeated calls. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. Notice of the present revision was duly served upon the non- applicant. However, despite service of notice, the non-applicant did not appear before this Court. On the subsequent dates also, despite directions issued by this Court, the non-applicant failed to e;ectively contest the matter. It further transpires from the order-sheets that the non-applicant, who is working as a Police Constable in the o=ce of the Superintendent of Police, District Kabirdham (Kawardha), was directed to remain present before this Court. Though he subsequently appeared in person and sought time to engage counsel, even after engaging learned counsel, he failed to provide necessary instructions to his counsel and remained absent. Ultimately, on 19.08.2026, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant submitted that despite having been engaged, the non- applicant was not responding and, therefore, he had no instructions in the matter. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, District Kabirdham (Kawardha), was directed to ensure his presence before this Court for today but he remained absent. 3. Hence, despite due service of notice and repeated opportunities having been granted to the non-applicant, he has failed to appear before this Court and contest the matter. In such circumstances, this Court has no option but to proceed with the matter in the absence of the non-applicant and consider the present revision on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and the material available on record. 3 4. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, assailing the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No.440/2025, whereby the application preferred by the applicants seeking appropriate direction for regular recovery/payment of the maintenance amount from the salary of the non-applicant has been rejected. 5. Brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that the applicants had earlier preferred an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the non- applicant, which was registered as Misc. Criminal Case No.47/2024 before the learned Family Court, Kabirdham. The said proceedings came to be disposed of vide order dated 03.08.2024, whereby the non-applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to applicant No.1/wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to applicant No.2/daughter, totaling Rs.7,000/- per month. It is the case of the applicants that despite the aforesaid order of maintenance, the non-applicant has failed to regularly pay the maintenance amount awarded by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that the non-applicant is working as a Police Constable in the Police Department and is receiving regular salary from the Government. According to the applicants, despite having a regular source of income, the non-applicant has deliberately failed to comply with the order of maintenance, thereby causing Bnancial hardship to the applicants. 4 6. In view of the alleged non-compliance of the maintenance order, the applicants moved an application before the learned Family Court seeking appropriate directions for recovery of the maintenance amount and for deduction of the amount of Rs.7,000/- per month from the salary payable to the non-applicant through his employer and for its deposit in the bank account of the applicant No.1. However, vide impugned order dated 19.12.2025, the learned Family Court rejected the said application, principally observing that the remedy available in case of non-payment of maintenance is under the relevant provision relating to enforcement/recovery of maintenance and that no direction for deduction from the salary of the non-applicant could be issued in the manner prayed for by the applicants. Hence, the present revision. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned Family Court has failed to appreciate the fact that a subsisting order of maintenance has already been passed in favour of the applicants and the non-applicant, despite being a Government employee and receiving regular salary, has failed to comply with the said order. It is further submitted that the applicants are dependent upon the maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court concerned and are facing hardship on account of non-payment thereof. Learned counsel submits that the application preferred by the applicants was intended to secure e;ective implementation of the existing maintenance order and not to seek modiBcation thereof. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the 5 matter be remitted to the learned Family Court for passing an appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record. 9. From perusal of the impugned order and the material available on record, it transpires that the applicants have already been granted maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month by the learned Family Court vide order dated 03.08.2024. The applicants have approached the learned Family Court seeking appropriate directions for regular payment/recovery of the said maintenance amount from the salary of the non-applicant, who is admittedly working as a Police Constable in the Police Department. The said application has been rejected by the learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 19.12.2025. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants, the nature of the prayer made in the application and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Family Court ought to have considered the prayer of the applicants in the light of the subsisting order of maintenance, the alleged non-payment of the maintenance amount and the fact that the non-applicant is a salaried Government employee. The question regarding the appropriate procedure and mode for recovery of the maintenance amount from the salary of the non- applicant requires consideration in accordance with the applicable 6 provisions of law. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kabirdham (C.G.) in Criminal MJC No.440/2025 is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Family Court concerned to consider the application preferred by the applicants afresh and pass an appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, after a;ording due opportunity of hearing to both the parties, particularly with regard to the procedure and mode prescribed under law for recovery/regular payment of the maintenance amount from the salary of the non-applicant. 12. It is clariBed that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the prayer made by the applicants and the learned Family Court shall decide the same independently in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the present criminal revision stands allowed. 14. Let a certiBed copy of this order be transmitted to the learned Family Court, concerned for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal