Name And Address Of v. Smt. Ankita Dugad Wife of Sunil Dagaliya Aged About 32 Years Resident Of City
Case Details
Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.04.17 11:31:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:16808 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 459 of 2025 Sunil Patil Son Of Subhash Patil Aged About 32 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Sunil Dagaliya) Resident Of 5368 Shop No. 3, Jay Gopal Apartment, Gandhi Putla Main Road, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur (Maharashtra) (Note: Name And Address Of Applicant Is Wrongly Mentioned In The Cause Title Of The Case Filed By The Non- applicant before The Family Court) ... Applicant versus Smt. Ankita Dugad Wife of Sunil Dagaliya Aged About 32 Years Resident Of City Kotwali, Arya Shukla Building, 1st Floor, Police Station- City Kotwali, Raipur, Tahsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) ...Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. Present Criminal Revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (for short, ‘Act 1984’), read with Section 438 and 442 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023) against the order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure A1) passed by the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, CG, in MJC- 822 of 2024, whereby, application filed by the applicant for staying the recovery proceeding has been rejected. 2 Crr 459 of 2025 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent is the legally wedded life of the applicant and their marriage was solemnized on 07.12.2020 at Udaipur, Rajasthan. After sometime of the marriage dispute arose between the parties, and it is alleged that respondent is being harassed by the applicant and his family members and both of them started residing separately. The victim/wife had lodged a report to the Police under Section 498A of the IPC and has filed an application under Section 125 of the CRPC before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Family Court-Raipur for grant of monthly maintenance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the applicant. The said application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of CRPC was decided by the learned Family court vide its order 29.05.2024 and an amount of Rs.40,000/- has been granted in favour of the respondent/wife as monthly maintenance amount, which is payable from the date of application i.e. 24.03.2023. On 26.06.2024, the respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 (3) of the CRPC for recovery of amount of maintenance from the applicant in which notices have been issued to the present applicant. On 12.02.2025 the applicant made his appearance through Amicus Curiae, and he was asked to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- against the arrears of maintenance amount, otherwise the order of maintenance will be executed in accordance with law. On 25.02.2025, the applicant did not appear in the proceeding under Section 125 (3) of the CRPC, warrant of arrest was issued against the applicant for recovery of arrears of 3 Crr 459 of 2025 maintenance amount. It is also directed that if the applicant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- he shall not be arrested and fixed the case for 24.04.2025. 3. Since the order dated 29.05.2024 granting maintenance to the respondent wife is ex-parte order as no notice was served upon the petitioner, he moved an application on 13.08.2024 before the learned Family court, Raipur under Section 126(2) of the CRPC for setting aside the ex-parte order. In his application, he averred that the respondent/wife has knowingly disclosed the wrong name of applicant so that notice may not be served upon him and for that reason notice could not be served, and ex-parte order has been passed against him. The actual name of the applicant is Sunil Patil, whereas the respondent has mentioned his name as Sunil Dagaliya. He came to know about the impugned order during the proceeding of the Criminal Case No.9900 of 2023, and then upon search, he came to know about the impugned order dated 29.05.2024. Immediately thereafter, he filed an application for setting aside the ex- parte order and claimed opportunity of hearing in the said case. In the application, filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) of the CRPC, registered as MCC 1050/24 in which notices have been issued to the present respondent and she made her appearance in that case also, whereas, application filed by the respondent under Section 125 (3) of the CRPC is registered as MCC 822 of 2024 in which applicant has appeared in the proceeding. 4 Crr 459 of 2025 4. In the proceeding of the case MCC 822/24 the applicant moved an application on 21.03.25 for grant of stay against the recovery proceeding as he already filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte order, and claimed hearing in the matter and prayed that till the decision of his application filed under Section 126(2) of the CRPC, the proceeding of Section 125 (3) CRPC may be stayed. After hearing the parties, the application filed by the applicant has been dismissed on the same day itself, which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he is not avoiding from payment of maintenance to his wife but he is claiming an opportunity of hearing before passing any order against him. His name has wrongly been mentioned in the maintenance application and therefore the notice could not be served upon him, ex-parte proceeding was drawn, and ultimately, ex-parte order has been passed against him granting maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the respondent wife. He would submit that since in both the proceedings filed by the parties the opposite party made appearance, and therefore, learned family court may be directed to decide both these applications / cases within a reasonable period in accordance with law. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. As per the documents annexed with the petition, it is quite vivid that present applicant is prosecuting an application under section 126 (2) of 5 Crr 459 of 2025 the CRPC for setting aside the ex-parte order passed against him granting maintenance to his wife, whereas the respondent also prosecute an application under Section 125 (3) of the CRPC for recovery of arrears of maintenance. In both these proceedings either parties have made their appearance and the proceeding is pending before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Family Court, Raipur. 8. Irrespective of rival claims, it would be appropriate to direct the learned Family Court to decide both these applications filed by the respective parties in MCC 822 of 2024 i.e. application under Section 125 (3) of the CRPC, filed by the respondent /wife, and MCC 1050 of 2024 which is the application filed by the applicant / husband under section 126 (2) of the CRPC. 9. Therefore, learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur is directed to decide both the aforesaid cases within three months from the next date fixed for hearing before it fixed before it on its own merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the respective parties subject to applicant depositing Rs.2,00,000/- out of the total arrears of maintenance before the learned Family Court, within 15 days from today. It is made clear that if the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is not deposited by the applicant within the stipulated time, the present order loses its efficacy. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed of. It is further directed that if the applicant / husband deposit the amount 6 Crr 459 of 2025 of Rs.2,00,000/- within the stipulated time before the learned Family Court, no coercive action shall be taken against him till the decision of learned family Court in the aforesaid cases. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the present Criminal Revision
Decision
stands disposed of. padma Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE