Iswar Verma v. Mrs. Madhu Verma

Judgment

1. Mrs. Madhu Verma W/o Ishwar Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o Padav Chowk Bye Pass Road, Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Village Jevara (S), Tehsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh

2. Nishant S/o Ishwar Verma Aged About 1 And 1/2 Years, Minor, Mother

Smt. Madhu Verma, Husband Ishwar Verma, R/o Padav Chowk Bye Pass Road, Mungeli, Tehsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh Presently R/o Village Jevara (S), Tehsil Navagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Amitesh Yadav, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board

30.01.2026

2. Heard Mr. Amitesh Yadav, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “A. Call for the Record of maintenance application filed under 125 CR.P.C in Family Court bearing case number Cr.M.J.C No. 310/2023, District Bemetara ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS 11:16:41 +0530 2 (C.G.) B. Set aside/quash the impugned order dated

15.11.2025 passed by the learned judge, Family Court, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) in Cr.M.J.C - No. 310/2023. C. Set aside the order dated 17.07.2025 whereby the right of defence of the revisionist/respondent- husband was closed; D. Restore the right defence of revisionist/respondent-husband and permit him to lead his evidence and cross-examine the witnesses in accordance with law; E. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. Brief facts of the case the wife of the applicant, i.e., respondent No.1, filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court, Bemetara (C.G.), seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month for herself and Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month for respondent No.2, totaling Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) per month from the present applicant. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the learned Trial Court passed an interim maintenance order dated 20.10.2023, directing the applicant to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) per month to respondent.

4. Due to financial hardship, lack of regular income, and compelling personal circumstances, the revisionist could not comply with the interim maintenance order within the stipulated time.

5. Without adjudicating the genuine reasons for non-payment and without adopting the coercive modes provided under law, the learned trial Court, by order dated 17.07.2025, closed the right of defence of the 3 respondent-husband. On 17.07.2025, the learned Family Court closed the right of defence of the present applicant on account of alleged non- payment of interim maintenance, and consequently, the case was decided without recording any evidence on behalf of the respondent- husband, thereby causing serious prejudice to the applicant and resulting in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, fair trial, and due process of law.

6. As a result of the said order, no evidence whatsoever was led on behalf of the revisionist, and the matter proceeded ex-parte in substance, causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice.

7. Ultimately, the learned trial Court passed the final order granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to respondent No.2, totaling Rs. 3,000/- per month, along with litigation expenses, without appreciating the defence, income, liabilities, or factual position of the revisionist.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in closing the defence of the applicant merely on the ground of non-payment of interim maintenance, which is not a permissible course of action under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also submits that non-payment of interim maintenance does not automatically empower the Court to deny the applicant his statutory right to lead evidence, particularly in quasi- criminal proceedings affecting valuable civil rights. He also submits that under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant is legally entitled to a fair opportunity of hearing, including the right to lead defence evidence and to cross-examine witnesses; however, the said statutory mandate has not been adhered to by the learned Court below, thereby vitiating the proceedings and rendering the impugned 4 order illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. He further submits that the proper remedy for enforcement of interim maintenance is through recovery proceedings or issuance of warrant as provided under law, and not by foreclosing the defence, which violates the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem. He submits that the impugned order has caused serious prejudice to the revisionist, inasmuch as the final order was passed without considering his income, financial capacity, dependents, or factual defence. The applicant-husband has, at all material times, been ready and willing to cohabit with the respondent and to discharge all marital obligations; however, the respondent has never been willing to reside with the applicant and, without any justifiable cause or reasonable explanation, has repeatedly insisted that the applicant leave his parental home and live separately, thereby voluntarily withdrawing from the matrimonial company of the applicant. He submits that the applicant duly pursued proceedings under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which application was allowed by the learned Family Judge, Mungeli; however, despite the passing of the said order, the respondent has deliberately failed and refused to resume cohabitation with the applicant, thereby willfully disobeying and acting in violation of the lawful order passed by the Hon’ble Court. He submits that the learned trial Court failed to consider that although proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are summary in nature, they nevertheless require a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the judgment of the learned Family Court.

10. Considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, materials available on record and also considering the price 5 index and medical expenses, total amount awarded to the respondent cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side warranting interference by this Court in the present revision petition.

11. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Abhishek Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice