[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sahu vs Smt. Anjali Sahu @ Anju Sahu on 27 February, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:10341
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DEWANGAN
CRR No. 188 of 2026
Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Shalikram Sahu Aged About 38 Years
R/o Phase 6 / A, Plot No. 62, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Tehsil And District-
Durg, Chhattisgarh, (Respondent Mentioned The Wrong Address Of The
Applicant Before The Court Below As C/o Dr. Suman Sahu, S.P.A. House
No. 11 A, Sector 09 Bhilai, Tehsil And District- Durg (Chhattisgarh)
( Present Address- C/o Balwant Sahu, Village- Achhoti, Abhuday
Sansthan, Police Station- Kumhari, Tehsil- Dhamdha, District- Durg,
Chhattisgarh)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - Smt. Anjali Sahu @ Anju Sahu W/o Dinesh Kumar Sahu Aged About
37 Years R/o Phase 06, House No. 2 / A, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Tehsil And
District, Durg, Chhattisgarh( Res. No. 1 Knowing As Smt. Anjali Sahu And
Anju Sahu)
2 - Kumari Yashi Sahu Through Legal Guardian Its Mother Aged About 4
Years R/o Phase 06, House No. 2 / A, Maitri Nagar, Risali, Tehsil And
District, Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
27.02.2026
1. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed that this Court may
kindly be pleased to allow this revision and set-aside the order
dated 13.11.2025 (Annexure-A/1) and 07.09.2022 (Annexure A/2),
passed by the learned Family Court, Durg, in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as a
Scheduler (Computer Operator) in a local news channel. Non-
applicant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant and Non-
applicant No.2 is the daughter of the applicant. Non-applicant No.1
is also known as Smt. Anju Sahu. The applicant filed an application
under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Durg (C.G.), against
Non-applicant No.1 and others for assaulting him. The applicant
preferred a revision against the said order, which was also
dismissed by the Revisional Court. Thereafter, the applicant filed
Cr.M.P. No.1183 of 2025 challenging the orders of the trial Court
and the Revisional Court, which is presently pending before the
Hon'ble Court. The non-applicant No.1 filed an application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Family
Court, Durg, immediately after the complaint under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. was filed against her. The said case was registered as
Criminal Case No. 1175/2021 and notice was issued to the
applicant for his appearance. The Non-applicant No.1 deliberately
submitted an incorrect address of the applicant, therefore, the
notices issued by the Family Court could not be served upon the
applicant.
3. On 23.02.2022, the Family Court recorded in the order-sheet that
the notices had been returned unserved and on the same day
directed issuance of summons to the applicant through the
concerned Police Station. Thereafter, on 28.04.2022, Non-applicant
No.1 filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil
Procedure for publication in a newspaper. The said application was
allowed by the Family Court and the case was fixed on 10.06.2022
for the appearance of the applicant. On 10.06.2022, the Family
Court passed an order and fixed the case for the appearance of the
applicant on 15.06.2022. On 15.06.2022, the Family Court initiated
ex-parte proceedings against the applicant and thereafter on
07.09.2022 passed an ex-parte order against him.
4. Thereafter the applicant filed an application under Section 126(2) of
Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the Family Court on 13.11.2025,
maintaining the earlier order dated 07.09.2022. Hence, this revision.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order
passed by the learned Family Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary
to the evidence and documents placed on record by the applicant. It
is further submitted that the learned Family Court has failed to
consider the financial condition of the applicant, who is presently not
in a position to maintain himself due to grievous injuries sustained in
the incident dated 13.09.2021, as a result of which he became a
neuro patient and is now dependent upon his parents for his
livelihood, having no independent source of income. It is also
submitted that the applicant had earlier filed an application under
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Durg (C.G.), against
the non-applicant No.1 and others in respect of the assault dated
13.09.2021, however, the revision preferred by the applicant was
dismissed and thereafter the applicant filed Cr.M.P. No.1183 of
2025 challenging the orders of the trial Court and the revisional
Court, which is came to be dismissed by this Court today itself. He
further submits that the non-applicant No.1 filed the application
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. only to counterblast the complaint filed
by the applicant and to harass him. It is also submitted that as per
the order dated 23.02.2022, the notices issued to the applicant were
returned unserved and the Family Court directed issuance of
summons through the police station upon payment of process fee
within three days, however, the non-applicant No.1 did not comply
with the said order and instead deliberately filed an application
under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure on
28.04.2022 for substituted service by way of publication in a
newspaper without complying with the previous order of the Court.
The said application was allowed and the case was fixed on
10.06.2022 for the appearance of the applicant and thereafter on
10.06.2022 the matter was further fixed for appearance on
15.06.2022, thereby depriving the applicant of proper opportunity to
appear before the trial Court.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant, perused the
impugned order and other documents appended with revision.
7. From perusal of the impugned order dated 13.11.2025 and the
material available on record, it transpires that during cross-
examination the applicant himself admitted in Paragraph No.11 that
on 23.01.2022 he had contacted Non-applicant No.1 through his
mobile phone and further admitted that he had already come to
know through his friend that Non-applicant No.1 had filed a
maintenance case against him before the Family Court concerned.
The applicant also admitted in Paragraph No.06 of his cross-
examination that the address mentioned in his application and
affidavit was not the place where he was actually residing and that
the said address was mentioned only formally. It further appears
that notices in the maintenance proceedings were issued on the
address furnished by the applicant himself, which were returned
with the endorsement "not claimed", clearly indicating that the
applicant had deliberately avoided service of notice. The Family
Court, after considering the entire evidence and material on record,
recorded a finding that the applicant had full knowledge of the
maintenance proceedings in Criminal Case No.1175/2021, yet he
intentionally failed to appear before the Court, as a result of which
an ex-parte maintenance order dated 07.09.2022 came to be
passed against him. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the
Family Court held that no sufficient ground was made out to set
aside the ex-parte order and accordingly dismissed the application
filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) of Cr.P.C. vide order
dated 13.11.2025.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the material
available on record, and the findings recorded by the learned Family
Court, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Family Court
concerned has rightly appreciated the evidence and has passed a
well-reasoned and justified order. The findings recorded by the
learned Family Court are based on proper appreciation of the
evidence, particularly the admissions made by the applicant in his
cross-examination, which clearly establish that the applicant had
knowledge of the maintenance proceedings and deliberately
avoided appearance before the Court. This Court does not find any
illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order
warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is
hereby dismissed.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Family
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Kunal
