1 CGHC010058922026 2026:CGHC:37859 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 259 of 2026 Jagnarayan Singh S/o Vireshwar Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Tangarmahri Police Station- Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus Smt. Satwanti Singh W/o Jagnarayan Singh D/o Sahodar Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Tangarmahri Ghasiyadohar Police Station Balrampur District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 24/08/2026 1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrampur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 03/2026 arising SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.09.02 10:42:40 +0530 2 out of judgment dated 04.07.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur in Misc Criminal Case No. 16 of 2022, by which learned Sessions Judge Balrampur has allowed the applicant to participate in the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in a complaint case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 while imposing a condition to pay/deposit the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- from the date of order dated 04.07.2023 till passing of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 13.01.2026. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the respondent/wife filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur, under Section 12 of the of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband/applicant and on 04.07.2023 an ex-parte order was passed against the respondent wherein the learned trial Court has directed the applicant/ husband to pay Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife. In the meanwhile, since the applicant was not complying with the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, therefore, the wife has filed an application for execution of the order dated 04.07.2023 and for recovery of the amount. 3. The order sheet of the case would demonstrate that the applicant was not responding to the notice issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate First therefore, he has issued fresh notice with a caution that in case the applicant does not appear in the proceeding, the kurki warrant may be 3 issued against the applicant. In pursuance of notice, the applicant appeared before the trial Court on 24.08.2024 and pray for time. 4. On 16.10.2024 neither the applicant appeared nor his counsel appeared therefore, the learned trial Court has proceeded ex-parte proceedings against the applicant. On 16.12.2024 the trial Court issued Kurki warrant against the appellant and fixed the case on 10.01.2025. 5. The record of the case would demonstrate that the applicant filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge Balrampur under Section 29 of the Act, 2005 which has been allowed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balrmapur but directed the applicant to pay the maintenance from the date of order i.e. 04.07.2023 till passing of the order i.e. 13.01.2026 which is being challenged in this Criminal Miscellaneous petition by the applicant. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2026 and order dated 04.07.203 are illegal, contrary and against the provisions of law. She would further submit that stringent condition was imposed upon the applicant by the trial Court and if this condition is allowed, it will be amount to grant of final relief without adjudication as during pendency of the criminal appeal subsequent new development has been taken place and would pray for setting a side the condition imposed by the Appellate Court while setting a side ex-parte order. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records. 4 8. It is well settled legal position of law that imposition of condition which is discretionary power of the Court while setting aside ex-parte order or decree the Court cannot exercise its power to put the defendant on such terms as may have the effect of prejudging the controversy involved in the suit and virtually decreeing the suit though the ex-parte order has been set aside or to put the parties on such terms as may be too onerous and the cost should be assessed reasonably to be compensated to the plaintiff for the loss of time and inconvenience caused by relegating back the proceedings of the case to an earlier stage. The view of this Court is fortified from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Madan and others vs. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society and others reported 2002(5) SCC 30 has taken the same view. 9. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Tea Auction Ltd. Vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry and another 2006 (9) Scale 223 has held in paragraph 15 and 23 as under:- 15. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC did not undergo any amendment in the year 1976. The High Courts, for a long time, had been interpreting the said provision as conferring power upon the courts to issue certain directions which need not be confined to costs or otherwise. A discretionary jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court passing an order for setting aside an ex parte decree not only on the basis that the defendant had been able to prove sufficient cause for his non-appearance even on the date when the decree was passed, but also other attending facts and circumstances. It may also consider the question as to whether the defendant should be put on terms. 5 The court, indisputably, however, is not denuded of its power to put the defendants to terms. It is, however, trite that such terms should not be unreasonable or harshly excessive. Once unreasonable or harsh conditions are imposed, the appellate court would have power to interfere therewith. But, it would not be correct to hold that no error has been committed by the Division Bench in holding that the learned Single Judge did not possess such power. The learned Single Judge exercised its discretionary jurisdiction keeping in view that the matter has been disposed of in fact finally at the interim stage at the back of defendant and it was in that view of the matter a chance was given to it to defend the suit, but, then the learned Single Judge was not correct to direct securing of the entire sum of Rs.37 lakhs in the form of bank guarantee or deposit the sum in cash. The condition imposed should have been reasonable. What would be reasonable terms would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. 23. While setting aside a decree, conditions can be imposed but such conditions should not be unreasonable or harshly excessive. 10. In light of the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the impugned order so far as imposition of cost by directing the applicant to pay to the respondent Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of passing of the order seems to be unreasonable, unsounded , therefore, the said condition only is quashed and the applicant is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent before the trial Court and the payment of Rs. 25,000/- will be a condition precedent for participating in the proceedings. If the amount is paid by the applicant, learned trial Court will allow the applicant to participate in the proceedings. It is also directed that the impugned order was passed in absence of the respondent, therefore, the respondent is at liberty to move an application for recalling of the order, if the respondent is not satisfied with the order. 6 11. With this observation, the revision is disposed of. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh