1 2026:CGHC:16902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 486 of 2026 Shamim S/o Abdul Hamid Aged About 37 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Bishunpur Junapara Main Road, Bishunpur P.S. Charcha Tahsil- Baikunthpur District- Koriya (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Aasma Saiyyad W/o Shamim Ali Kadari D/o Peer Mohmmad Aged About 31 Years House Wife R/o Of Gram Panchayat Tripureshwarpur Dagmala P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujnagar District- Surajpur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 13.04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) in unregistered Misc. Criminal Case, whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant was dismissed by the learned Family Court. 3. The facts, in brief, is that the applicant got married with respondent on 21.04.2024 at Village Tripureshwar in accordance with Muslim tradition. The respondent wife left the matrimonial house on her own volition on 02.08.2024 without there being any reason alleging that the applicant RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 is not of her choice, applicant is not able to fulfill her demands due to paucity of money and respondent married with the applicant only due to pressure of Raushan Uncle. The respondent had filed an application under Section 144 of BNSS in the month of September 2024 and claimed maintenance to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- per month from the applicant. The applicant was never served with notice of aforesaid Misc. Criminal Case No.225/2024, therefore, he could not appear before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Surajpur. The learned Family Court proceeded ex parte against the applicant and passed ex parte order dated 04.08.2025 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 225/2024 awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month in favour of the respondent wife. For the first time on 18.10.2025 applicant came to know about Misc. Cr. Case No. 225/2024 and impugned ex-parte order passed on 04.08.2025. Thereafter, applicant moved application for obtaining certified copies of the case on 23.,10.2025, and the same has been prepared by Copying Section on 29.10.2025. the applicant fell ill on 28.10.2025 and recovered somewhere in the last week of November, 2025 and therefore, an application for setting-aside ex parte order has ben filed on 01.12.2025. The applicant has further moved an application for condonation of delay in filing Misc. Cr. Case as for the first time he came to know about order dated 04.08.2025 by notice dated 18.10.2025. The learned Family Court by the impugned order dated 03.01.2025 dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the applicant without registering the Misc. Cr. Case. Hence, this revision. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the applicant had shown sufficient cause for delay occurred in filing Misc. Criminal Case for setting aside ex-parte order dated 04.08.2025. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law, perverse and erroneous, and the same it is liable to be set-aside/quashed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that the Family Court in the impugned order held that notices issued on 04.02.2025 and 06.03.2025 has been returned unserved, thereafter, notice has been issued by registered post which came back with note that the applicant not found in given address, thereafter, respondent wife got published notice in news-paper, however, despite that the applicant husband did not appeared on 07.05.2025, therefore, the Court proceeded ex-parte against the applicant, and no such good ground has been raised by the applicant’s side, thus, there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 4 8. Let a certified copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar