Courts can sustain ex-parte orders when no procedural irregularities undermine the justice rendered, even in cases of absence due to misinformation.

Order on Board

24.06.2025

1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. None present for the non-applicants.

2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this revision and set aside the impugned order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in MJC NO. 444/2016.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No.1 was married to the applicant in the year 2006 at Kargi Road, Kota and out of their wedlock, non-applicant No.2 (child) was born on 03.05.2008. From the initial days of marriage, the applicant began harassing non- applicant No.1 for dowry. In January 2012, the applicant assaulted her severely, causing injuries on various parts of her body. A police report regarding the said incident was also lodged at the concerned police station. It is further alleged that the applicant is addicted to alcohol and under its influence, used to subject non-applicant No.1 to physical violence. Previously, on 10.10.2013, the applicant had filed a divorce petition, during the pendency of which, a compromise was arrived at, and the non-applicants started residing with him again. However, on 11.12.2013, the applicant once again assaulted her and drove her out of the matrimonial home. Since then, she has been residing at her parental home. She has no independent source of income, whereas the applicant works as a driver and earns approximately ₹15,000 to ₹20,000 per month. Due to lack of financial difÏculties, she along with her minor child, filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, seeking maintenance amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the applicant/husband.

4. The applicant appeared before the Court after service of notice and also participated in the counselling proceedings. However, from the hearing dated 26.08.2015 onwards, he remained continuously absent. Consequently, on 07.10.2015, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against him due to his failure to appear. Therefore, no written reply or response has been submitted on his behalf in this matter.

5. Learned Family Court after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, decided the matter on ex-parte and passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2016, whereby the applicant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- per month to the non-applicant No.1/wife and Rs. 1500/- per month to the non-applicant No.2/son as amount of maintenance (total 3500/-) from the date of passing of the order and further ordered to bear Rs. 500/- for expenses of the proceeding. Being aggrieved by the same, applicant preferred an application under Section 126 (2) of Cr.P.C. and Section 5 of Limitation Act, before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bilaspur challenging the order dated 23.01.2016, and the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, after appreciating the documents and material available on record, dismissed the same. Hence, this revison.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is a driver in private capacity and has his parents dependent upon him and is in a financial crisis due to no work. He further submits that the applicant has always abided by the law and has duly appeared before the Court as per the date scheduled and subsequently participated in the counselling but to no avail. He further submits that on account of the failure of the advocate of the present applicant to inform about the proceeding the applicant for bonafide reason failed to appear before the learned court below and thereafter, the learned court below passed an ex- parte order against the present applic