1 2026:CGHC:727 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 778 of 2022 Praveen Kumar Nishad S/o Shrikant Nishad Aged About 29 Years Occupation- Police Service, Batch No. 794, R/o Balodabazar Police Line, Infront of Police Thana, Tahsil And District- Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Smt. Hemlata Nishad W/o Praveen Kumar Nishad Aged About 29 Years Occupation- House Wife, R/o Katulboard Durg Ward No. 59, Behind Yadav Gairej, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. This criminal revision has been 昀椀led by the petitioner with the following prayer: “I. It is therefore prayed that, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision petition and set-aside/quash the ex- party impugned order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Durg (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No. 849/2019, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 Smt. Smt. Hemlata Nishad Vs. Praveen Kumar Nishad, (ANNEXURE-P/1). II. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be please to also set-aside the order dated 31.08.2021 by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the court below and kindly reminded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. III. Further may kindly be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court may think 昀椀t and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a lower salaried employee, residing at the address mentioned in the cause title along with his aged parents. The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, and their marriage was solemnized on 18.04.2017. After some time of marriage, disputes arose as the respondent insisted on living separately, as she was unwilling to reside with the aged parents of the petitioner, and without any justi昀椀able reason, she left the matrimonial home and started residing at Durg. Despite repeated e昀昀orts made by the petitioner, including approaching the family members of the respondent for reconciliation, she refused to return to the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent lodged false complaints, including an FIR alleging dowry demand, proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Durg, claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the 3 petitioner was proceeded ex parte by the Family Court on 04.02.2020, and despite the di昀케culties arising due to the COVID-19 pandemic, his application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was rejected on 31.08.2021, and on the same day, the impugned order directing payment of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance was passed without a昀昀ording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The learned Family Court failed to consider that the petitioner has no other source of income, earns a monthly salary of less than Rs.24,000/-, is maintaining his aged parents, and is also burdened with bank loan liabilities amounting to Rs.11,401/- per month. Ignoring these material facts and solely relying upon the statements of the respondent, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex parte impugned order passed by the learned Family Court is bad in the eyes of law, being a non-speaking order, as maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been granted without recording any cogent reasons, rendering the same liable to be set aside by this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that the respondent-wife had refused to live with the petitioner without any justi昀椀able cause, and therefore, she was not entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The learned Court below also failed to consider the admitted 昀椀nancial position of the petitioner, who earns a net monthly salary of less than Rs.24,000/- and is burdened with loan liabilities of Rs.11,401/- per month, and after payment of Rs.8,000/- as maintenance, the petitioner is left with insu昀케cient means for his own survival. It is 4 submitted that the petitioner has always been willing to reside with the respondent under one roof, whereas the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason, and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are false and malicious, instituted with ulterior motives, which have adversely a昀昀ected his career. The learned Court below further failed to consider that the respondent is well quali昀椀ed and capable of earning, and cannot be permitted to remain idle and claim maintenance from a low-salaried husband. Lastly, while rejecting the petitioner’s application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, the learned Court below ignored the settled principles of law and violated the principles of natural justice, and the impugned order has resulted in execution proceedings being initiated against the petitioner, causing grave prejudice to him. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District- Durg, (C.G.). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the learned Family Court, after due consideration of the material available on record, has rightly passed the impugned order, holding that the respondent-wife was entitled to maintenance. The Court took note of the admitted marital relationship between the parties, the fact that the respondent was residing separately, and the 5 pleadings placed before it in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 04.02.2020 due to his non-appearance, and despite being a昀昀orded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings, he failed to e昀昀ectively contest the claim. Upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the respondent, the learned Family Court, by order dated 31.08.2021, exercised its judicial discretion and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. The impugned order re昀氀ects a proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and has been passed to secure the subsistence and dignity of the respondent-wife, in accordance with the settled principles governing maintenance proceedings. 7. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and the 昀椀nding recorded by the learned Family Court, I am of the view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality or in昀椀rmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan