Nandkumar Patre v. Sumit Shrivastava

: Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI 14:08:10 +0530 Order on Board

09.02.2026

1. This Criminal Revision is being aggrieved of the judgment dated

28.10.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Case No. unregistered/2024, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application under Section 126 of the CrPC and application under Section 5 of Limitation Act filed by the applicant.

2. The facts, in brief, is that Smt. Santoshi Patre/respondent was earlier married to one Rajkumar Patre. After leaving her husband, she abducted the applicant when he was about 16 years of age and started residing 2 with him. Subsequently, she suddenly created disputes with the applicant, left him at Village Khairwar Mishr, took the keys of the applicant’s house situated at Awaspara, Sakri, and unlawfully took possession of the said house. Initially the respondent, Smt. Santoshi Patre, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31.03.2022, stating therein that the applicant was her husband and that their marriage had taken place about 20 years earlier. She further alleged that after some time of marriage the applicant started harassing her and that she had no source of income, and therefore claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. She also filed an application for interim maintenance. The case was instituted on 02.04.2022 and was fixed for arguments before registration on 25.04.2022. On 25.04.2022, notice was ordered to be issued and the matter was fixed for 20.06.2022. On

20.06.2022, the case was proceeded ex parte as the applicant therein was neither represented by counsel nor present in person. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for ex parte evidence on 04.08.2022, on which date the evidence of the respondent herein and one Olan Prasad was recorded. The learned Family Court committed a grave error of law in declaring the applicant ex parte, as no notice was ever served upon him by the process server. The name of the applicant was inserted after striking off the name of one Chawanni Sahu, and after overwriting the signature of Dharmendra Sahu, the name “Nandkumar” was written. The said manipulated report was made the sole basis for proceeding ex parte, which clearly establishes that the respondent committed fraud by fabricating the service report. Relying upon such a document, the learned Family Court erroneously proceeded ex parte against the applicant. The learned trial Court, without considering the fact that no notice had been served upon the applicant and that the service report was a concocted document, 3 proceeded ex parte and subsequently, on 31.07.2023, passed the final ex parte order partly allowing the respondent’s application and granting maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month, solely on the basis of oral evidence. The court failed to appreciate that the applicant had no knowledge of the proceedings. After passing of the maintenance order, the respondent initiated execution proceedings for recovery of the maintenance amount. When a levy warrant was issued against the applicant, he came to know about the pendency of the case for the first time.

3. Upon inquiry, the applicant came to know that the respondent had submitted false and fabricated documents regarding service of notice. Immediately thereafter, the applicant filed an application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte proceedings dated 20.06.2022 and the final order dated 31.07.2023, raising all relevant grounds and also filing the affidavit of Olan Prasad. The learned trial Court, without properly appreciating the grounds raised and without considering the fact that no notice was ever served upon the applicant and that the matter was proceeded ex parte in a single hearing, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in a mechanical manner. The court relied upon the fabricated service report of one Dharmendra Sahu, who had no connection with the present case, and dismissed the limitation application on the ground that day-to-day delay was not explained and that the number of days of delay was not mentioned. Consequently, the application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. was also dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court erred in law in dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without properly 4 appreciating the facts and grounds raised therein, despite the applicant having satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant was never served with notice in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and that the matter was proceeded ex parte after fixing only a single date, which is contrary to settled principles of law. The learned Family Court further failed to consider that no notice was ever served upon the petitioner and that the impugned order was passed by relying upon a fabricated service report. The said service report allegedly prepared by one Dharmendra Sahu, who had no connection with the present case, was wrongly relied upon. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had no knowledge of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and came to know of the same only when a levy warrant was issued against him. Immediately thereafter, the applicant moved an application under Section 126 Cr.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent obtained the order of maintenance by instituting a false and fabricated case and by conspiring against the applicant. It is a settled principle of law that a party impleaded in proceedings is entitled to a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed. The learned court failed to safeguard this fundamental right, proceeded ex parte, and ultimately passed a final ex parte order, which is unjust, arbitrary, and bad in the eyes of law. The learned Family Court failed to appreciate that the respondent did not establish a prima facie case, as the existence of a valid marriage being a prerequisite for grant of maintenance was not proved. The applicant was impleaded only to harass him and to wrongfully obtain maintenance by way of a false and fabricated case. 5

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Family Court, it transpires that after hearing all the statements of the witnesses and perusing the evidence available on record, and considering the conditions of both the parties, the learned Family Court has passed the impugned order, and there is no any illegality and infirmity while passing the same which requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Let a certified copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

9. Preeti