Venkat Satyanarayan Alias K. Venkatmurty v. Smt. Kedarishwari & Ors.

: Mr. Pushp Kumar Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. Devendra Mahajan, Advocate through V.C. For Non-applicants : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

22.06.2026 Order on Board

1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is most humbly prayed that this Court by allowing the present Revision may be pleased to: 2 i. Call for the entire records of Misc. Criminal Case No. 334/2010 (order dated 30.11.2010) and Misc. Criminal Application No. 431/2016 (order dated 04.09.2019), decided by the Family Court, Durg (C.G.); ii. Set aside/quash the order dated 30.11.2010 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 334/2010 awarding maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month; iii. Set aside/quash the order dated 04.09.2019 passed in Misc. Criminal Application No. 431/2016 enhancing maintenance to Rs. 6,000/- per month. iv. Remand both matters to the learned Family Court, Durg, for fresh adjudication afresh on merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner; V. Stay the operation, execution and effect of the impugned orders dated 30.11.2010 and 04.09.2019, including all consequential recovery proceedings; vi. Stay all consequential recovery proceedings and coercive steps arising out of the impugned orders dated

30.11.2010 and 04.09.2019, including ongoing salary deductions pursuant to memo dated 02.07.2025, and direct immediate suspension of further deductions during pendency of the present revision. vii. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and expedient in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage between the applicant 3 and Non-applicant No.1 was solemnized on 23.06.2007 at Bhilai, District Durg, in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the applicant, who was employed as a Helper in the South East Central Railway, Nagpur Division, took Non-applicant No.1 to the matrimonial home at Nagpur. However, within four days of the marriage, i.e., on 27.06.2007, Non-applicant No.1 left the matrimonial home without any sufficient or justifiable cause and thereafter refused to resume cohabitation. Out of the said wedlock, a male child, namely Non-applicant No.2, was born on 30.08.2008. With a bona fide intention to restore matrimonial ties, the applicant instituted Petition No. A-1019/2009 before the Family Court, Nagpur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. However, Non-applicant No.1, in her written statement dated 27.07.2010, categorically declined to reside with the applicant, compelling him to withdraw the said petition. Thereafter, Non-applicant No.1 initiated proceedings under Section 125 CrPC by filing Misc. Criminal Case No.334/2010 before the Family Court, Durg. The applicant had duly engaged a counsel and was under the bona fide belief that the matter was being effectively contested. However, owing to non-appearance and negligence on the part of the engaged counsel, the proceedings culminated in an ex parte order dated 30.11.2010 whereby maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month was awarded to Non-applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to Non-applicant No.2. Subsequently, on

30.04.2016, Non-applicant No.1 filed Misc. Criminal Application 4 No.431/2016 under Section 127 CrPC seeking enhancement of maintenance. Once again, despite engaging counsel, the applicant could not effectively contest the proceedings due to the negligence and non-appearance of his counsel and, consequently, by ex parte order dated 04.09.2019, the Family Court enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of Non- applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of Non-applicant No.2. During the relevant period, the applicant was undergoing severe financial hardship on account of repayment of personal loans and the serious medical condition of his dependent unmarried sister, Miss Uma Narayan Murti, who had suffered a major heart attack and was undergoing treatment at Shree Krishna Hrudayalaya & Critical Care Centre, Nagpur. Meanwhile, Non-applicant No.1 lodged FIR No.2/2014 at Mahila Thana, Durg under Sections 498- A/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act nearly seven years after separation. However, after a full-fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, vide judgment dated

19.10.2023, acquitted the applicant and his sisters of all the charges.

3. Thereafter, Non-applicant No.1 initiated execution proceedings by filing Criminal MJC No.1591/2022 under Section 125(3) CrPC. The Family Court, by order dated 25.06.2025, allowed the execution proceedings ex parte and directed attachment of the applicant's salary. Pursuant thereto, vide memo dated 02.07.2025, the applicant's employer was directed to deduct an amount of Rs.22,215/- per month towards alleged arrears of maintenance. 5 Aggrieved by the said attachment order, the applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.1032/2025 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which came to be dismissed on 21.08.2025. However, the applicant was neither informed about the dismissal of the revision nor apprised of the earlier ex parte orders by his previous counsel. It was only after engaging a new counsel that the applicant, for the first time, came to know about the ex parte orders dated 30.11.2010 and 04.09.2019. Immediately thereafter, he applied for certified copies, which were received on 13.11.2025, whereupon the negligence and omission on the part of his earlier counsel came to light. The present revision petition has, therefore, been filed without any undue delay immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the impugned orders.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned ex parte orders dated 30.11.2010 and 04.09.2019 have been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the applicant was never afforded an effective opportunity of hearing, filing reply, adducing evidence or cross-examining the witnesses. It is further submitted that the proceedings were conducted without proper and valid service of notice upon the applicant and due to the negligence and misconduct of his previous counsel, who failed to inform him about the pendency and outcome of the proceedings. It is contended that the applicant came to know about the impugned orders only upon obtaining certified copies on 13.11.2025 and thereafter approached this Court without any delay. Learned counsel further submits that Non-applicant No.1 suppressed 6 material facts regarding her income and obtained the impugned orders on the basis of unrebutted and unverified assertions, without any proper inquiry regarding the applicant's actual income and liabilities. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court failed to consider the applicant's financial hardships and passed the impugned orders mechanically, rendering the same arbitrary, perverse and unsustainable in law. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned Family Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the impugned orders and other documents appended with revision.

6. From perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that Non- applicant No.1 along with her child had initially filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court seeking maintenance from the applicant. The said proceedings culminated in an ex parte order dated 30.11.2010, whereby the learned Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to Non- applicant No.1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to Non-applicant No.2, totaling Rs.3,000/- per month. Thereafter, Non-applicant No.1 along with her child preferred an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance and the said proceedings were also decided ex parte vide order dated 04.09.2019, whereby the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of Non-applicant No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month in favour of Non-applicant No.2, totaling Rs.6,000/- per month. Subsequently, in execution proceedings initiated by the Non-applicants, the learned 7 Family Court directed attachment of the salary of the applicant towards arrears of maintenance. The applicant had earlier challenged the attachment order by filing CRR No.1032/2025 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which came to be dismissed on

21.08.2025. Despite the aforesaid facts, the applicant has failed to establish any sufficient cause for interference with the impugned orders at this belated stage.

7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, perusing the documents appended with the revision and the findings recorded by the learned Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that the Family Court has not committed any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned orders. The maintenance awarded and subsequently enhanced by the learned Family Court cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable considering the relationship between the parties, the needs of the Non-applicants and the prevailing cost of living. No ground is made out for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Kunal