Advocates:
['Supriya Upasane', '', 'ALOK DUBEY', 'Dashrath Kushwaha', '', 'PUSHPENDRA KUMAR PATEL', 'Pawan Kumar Kashyap']

-1-

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

CRR No. 338 of 2022

Rambha Dewangen W/o Manharan Dewangan, Aged About 24 Years

Tundra, Gidhouri, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh).

---- Applicant

Versus

Manharan Dewangen S/o Fadal Dewangan, Aged About 32 Years

Pakariya, Pamgarh, District Janjgir, District Balodabazar Bhatapara

(Chhattisgarh).

---- Respondent

For Applicant

: Ms. Supriya Upasane, Advocate.

For Respondent

: Shri Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

18-08-2022

Heard.

1. The applicant herein had moved an application under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Baloda Bazar inter alia on the ground

that on 29.11.2010, the marriage between the parties was solemnized

according to Hindu Custom. There are two children out of their wedlock.

After sometime, a dispute arose between the parties and the applicant

started residing separately. She moved an application under Section

125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance for herself and for her

children.

2. The case was fixed before the Family Court on 13.2.2020 for recording

evidence of the applicant but she could not appear and the case was

dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. The application for restoration was moved on 29.1.2021 and vide order

dated 7.1.2022, learned Family Court rejected the application for

restoration stating that there is inordinate delay in filing the application

for restoration.

-2-

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in suo moto proceeding had extended the limitation period during

COVID period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 and it is also observed by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022

shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed

under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-

judicial proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for non-applicant submits that the learned Family Court

has assigned sufficient reasons for dismissing the case for want of

prosecution and also rejecting the application for restoration and he

supports the orders passed by the learned Family Court.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the

record.

7. It is apparent from the order that the case was dismissed for want of

prosecution on 13.2.2020 and on that date, the applicant failed to

appear and thereafter, rejected the application for restoration on

7.1.2022 ignoring the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

wherein the period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 has been excluded for

the purposes of limitation.

8. Considering the facts and the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, I am of the opinion that the learned Family Court has committed

illegality in rejecting the application for restoration and also dismissing

the petition for want of prosecution. The order passed by the Learned

Family Court dated 13.2.2020 and order dated 7.1.2022 in Misc.

Criminal Case No. 28 of 2021 are hereby set aside. The case of the

applicant is restored to its original number. The parties are directed to

appear before the learned Family Court on 1.9.2022.

-3-

9. With the aforesaid observation, this criminal revision is disposed of.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

Judge

Nimmi