2025:CGHC:60636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1160 of 2025 Nemichand Pandey S/o Late Govind Pandey Aged About 36 Years R/o Vishrampuri (Keshkal), Tahsil- Baderajpur, P.S. Vishrampuri, District-

Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant versus Smt. Abhilasha Pandey W/o Nemichand Pandey Aged About 30 Years R/o Quarter No. 6b, Street No. S.P.A. Zone-3, Sector-11, Khursipar Bhilai, P.S. Khursipar, Tahsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

12 /12/2025

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated

07.04.2025 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Case No.22/2025 and ex-party order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge Family Court Durg, District Durg, (C.G.) in criminal Case No. 658/2023 whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under order 9 rule 13 of the CPC filed by the applicant.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent/wife filed an RAHUL DEWANGAN application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. along with an application

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act and an interim application before the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg (C.G.), seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- from the applicant. The parties had solemnized marriage on 03.05.2015 as per Hindu rites and thereafter lived together as husband and wife, and two children, a son and a daughter were born from the wedlock. The respondent alleged that after some time of marriage, the applicant and his family members subjected her to cruelty and harassment without any justifiable reason, compelling her to leave the matrimonial home and reside with her parents. She further pleaded that she has no independent source of income for her survival, whereas the applicant, working as a contractor and trading in Laghu Vanopaj, earns approximately Rs.3,00,000/- per month. On issuance of notice, the applicant filed his reply denying all allegations and asserted that he was not liable to pay the claimed maintenance. Thereafter, the learned Family Court, in the absence of the applicant, passed an ex-parte order dated 26.07.2024 directing him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as interim maintenance. Aggrieved, the applicant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex-parte order, submitting that he could not appear due to suffering from paralysis and because his amicus curiae, Mohan Sinha, was hospitalized for brain hemorrhage from 13.06.2024 to 11.07.2024 at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, for whose treatment and care the applicant was engaged. He contended that the ex-parte order was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without considering the material placed on record. The respondent filed her reply denying these averments. However, by order dated 07.04.2025, the learned Family Court rejected the applicant’s application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Hence, the present criminal revision has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and the facts on record, inasmuch as the learned Family Court failed to appreciate the genuine and sufficient cause shown by the applicant in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking recall of the ex parte maintenance order dated 26.07.2024. It is submitted that the applicant was suffering from paralysis, and his amicus curiae, Shri Mohan Sinha, was simultaneously undergoing treatment for brain hemorrhage at Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur; owing to this critical medical situation, the applicant was unable to appear before the Court, which constituted a bona fide and unavoidable reason for his absence. Despite this, the learned Family Court completely overlooked the medical cond