SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4519




##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35872

1 CRR No.6351/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL

ON THE 7th OF MAY, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 6351 of 2024

SMT. RASHI MOOLCHANDANI AND OTHERS

Versus

KOMAL MOOLCHANDANI

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

None for the petitioners.

O R D E R

Registry has listed this case for consideration of pending application

(IA No.510/2025) for condonation of delay of 189 days occurred in filing of

instant criminal revision as well as for admission.

2. The application has been filed on the ground that the petitioners were

not aware about the impugned order dtd.12.03.2024 nor did their local

counsel inform them about dismissal of the maintenance case and when they

came to know about the same, they contacted the counsel and after getting the

certified copy of impugned order, the criminal revision was filed immediately.

3. Upon due consideration of the reasons assigned in the application

especially in the light of illegally passed final order dtd.12.03.2024 dismissing

the main application for want of prosecution, the delay occurred in filing of

the instant criminal revision is hereby condoned even without issuing notice

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SWETA SAHU

Signing time: 11-05-2026

11:06:43

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35872

2 CRR No.6351/2024

to the respondent/husband in the light of decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case ofSeshNath Singh And Another v.BaidyabatiSheoraphuli Co-

operative Bank Ltd. And Anr.,(2021) 7 SCC 313 (pr.61-62) and N.

Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy,AIR 1998 SC 3222.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of main application

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. an application for interim maintenance was filed

and after hearing the parties the same was allowed vide interim order

dtd.21.09.2021 awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- each to the petitioners 2-3

(minor daughters), which was challenged by the respondent/husband by filing

connected CRR no.3003/2021, which was tagged with the instant criminal

revision and due to passing of final order dtd.12.03.2024, has been dismissed

by this Court today itself as having rendered infructuous, which shows that

the respondent/husband is well aware of the pendency of instant criminal

revision.

5. Although the petitioners, instead of filing instant criminal revision, may

also file an application for restoration of main application under Section 125

Cr.P.C. but there being no clear position about filing of the application for

restoration, it may take years together for its decision. Since the impugned

order is a glaring example of non-application of mind and not following the

law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for want of knowledge or

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SWETA SAHU

Signing time: 11-05-2026

11:06:43

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:35872

3 CRR No.6351/2024

otherwise, therefore, instant criminal revision is being decided even without

issuing any notice to the respondent.

6. This criminal revision has been preferred by the petitioners (wife and

two minor daughters) challenging the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by

Principal Judge, Family Court, Katni in MJCR no.33/2021 whereby the

Family Court has dismissed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed

by the petitioners for want of prosecution, even after recording entire

evidence of the petitioners i.e. after closure of evidence of the petitioners.

7. Even though no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioners to press

the instant criminal revision, but from perusal of the record it is clear that in

support of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners

adduced their evidence and lastly it was declared closed on 10.02.2024,

thereafter the respondent/husband was directed to produce his evidence on

24.02.2024.

8. On 24.02.2024, the respondent did not appear for recording of his

statement and an application was filed on his beh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top