Birendra Kumar Verma vs Smt. Neetu Verma
2022 Latest Caselaw 6655 Chatt

                                       1

                                                                          NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       Criminal Revision No.236 of 2021


Birendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Narayan Verma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village
Sarwadih, Post Bagbuda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-
Bhatapara, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Applicant
                                    Versus
1. Smt. Neetu Verma W/o Shri Birendra Kumar Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o
   Village Sarwadih, Post Bagbuda, Police Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar-
   Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2. Minor Ku. Bhagyalaxmi Verma D/o Shri Birendra Kumar Verma Aged About 1
   Years Through Guardian Mother Smt. Neetu Verma W/o Shri Birendra Kumar
   Verma Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sarwadih, Post Bagbuda, Police
   Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh At Present C/o
   Neetu Verma D/o Shri Nanakram Verma R/o Village Kari, Post Kohraud, Police
   Station Kasdol, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ----Non-Applicants



For Applicant:                   Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State:         Shri Jitendra Shukla, Advocate.


                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
                                Order on Board
07.11.2022

1.     By way of this Revision, the Applicant has challenged the judgment dated

03.12.2020 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Baloda Bazaar in Misc. Criminal

Case No.211/2019 whereby, maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.3,000/- to

Respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to Respondent No.2 has been granted under

Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that no opportunity was

granted to the Applicant to file reply to the application for grant of interim

maintenance amount. He further submits that on 14.01.2020, time was granted

to file reply for the original application as well as for interim maintenance

application and the case was fixed on 29.01.2020 on which date, the Applicant

could not appear and the case was proceeded ex parte, therefore, the impugned

order has been passed, which is bad in law. He further submits that on account

of lock-down due to Corona Virus, the Applicant could not appear before the

Court and on instructions, he submits that the Applicant is still willing to keep his

wife along with him and is also ready to pay the interim maintenance to the tune

of Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- to Non-Applicant No.1-wife and Rs.2,000/- to Non-

Applicant No.2-daughter and is also ready to clear the arrears within a period of

two months and prays that the same may be calculated from the date of passing

of the impugned order i.e. 03.12.2020. He further prays that the matter be

remanded to the Family Court with a direction to provide an opportunity of

hearing to the Applicant, granting him time to file reply as also to cross-examine

the Non-Applicants.

3. On the other hand, Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned Counsel for the Non-

Applicants opposes the Revision and submits that sufficient opportunity has been

given to the Applicant but he has deliberately not appeared before the concerned

Court, therefore, learned Family Court has rightly dealt with the issue involved

therein for which, no interference is required.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record

with utmost circumspection.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly

considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the Applicant that he is still

willing to keep his wife and child along with him and is also ready to pay the

interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- each to both the

Non-Applicants from the date of passing of the impugned order dated 03.12.2020

and is also ready to clear the arrears within two months, this Court is of the view

that the Applicant should be given an opportunity to contest his case on merits.

6. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that interim

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- each to both the Non-Applicants be

paid till the final adjudication of the Revision. Arrears be realized and the amount

already deposited be also adjusted in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the Revision stands disposed of.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priya