Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arjun Raghuwanshi vs Smt. Reena on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33027
1 CRR-2786-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2786 of 2023
ARJUN RAGHUWANSHI
Versus
SMT. REENA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Javed Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.
(Heard on 29.10.2025)
(Delivered on 13.11.2025)
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 401 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 read with
section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is preferred challenging the legality
of order dated 21.12.2022 in MJCR No.55/2021 by the Principal Judge, Family
Court District- Dhar (M.P.) whereby amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded to respondent
no.1 and Rs.3,000/- each to respondent no.2 and 3 minor children as maintenance
under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.
2. Fact of the case in brief are that marriage of revision petitioner was
solemnized with the respondent no.1 on 06.05.2011 as per the hindu rituals and
out of their wedlock two children i.e. respondent no.2 and 3 took birth who are
minor. On 02.03.2021 an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 was
preferred alleging various acts of cruelty, neglect of maintenance, inability to
maintain themselves and sufficiency of sources of the revision petitioner to
maintain the respondents and sought an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month for
maintenance.
3. After service of notice revision petitioner marked his appearance but did
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33027
2 CRR-2786-2023
not filed the reply and he remain absent on the later stage of proceedings. Vide
order dated 28.10.2022 proceedings was proceeded against the revision petitioner
as Ex-parte. After recording the evidence respondent no.1 (PW-1) application for
maintenance was partly allowed as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment and an
amount of maintenance was awarded from the date of application i.e. 02.03.2021.
4. Challenging the legality of the impugned order, this revision petition is
preferred mainly on the ground that he is to bear the responsibility of the parents
and impugned order of Rs.11,000/- cannot be complied by him. The cause of
action aroses within the territorial jurisdiction of Tehsil Pithampur. Family Court
Dhar have no territorial jurisdiction to hear the case arising out of the local limits
of Tehsil Pithampur. Family Court Dhar himself expressed the opinion that he has
no jurisdiction to hear the case arising out of Tehsil Pithampur vide order dated
23.09.2022 in proceedings under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
Respondent no.1 is residing since 02.09.2020 at the residence of her father in
village Sulavad District Dhar (M.P.) and expressed the factum before the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate Dhar, District Dhar in search warrant proceeding Annexure-
P/6. His counsel has intimated him that Family Court Dhar has no jurisdiction to
hear the case and separate notice will be issued by Pithampur Court. He did not
mark appearance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar (M.P.) He knew
about the impugned order only after warrant was issued against him. He could not
file the proceedings before the court within the time.
5. No one appeared for the respondents despite service of notice.
6. Heard.
7. Perused the record.
8. Firstly, this court is addressing the objection regarding the territorial
jurisdiction of Family Court, Dhar and for this purpose notification dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33027
3 CRR-2786-2023
02.11.2022 issued by the Law and Legislative Department, Govt. of Madhya
Pradesh is being reproduced as below:-
"NOTIFICATION
F.NO 4342/XXI-B(1)/2022. - In exercise of the powers
conferred by Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (No.
66 of 1984), the State Government, after Consultation with
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, hereby, makes the
following further amendment in this department's
Notification F.No. 1-1/2002/21-B (1) dated 24 th March,
2014, which was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette
dated 4th April, 2014 namely :-
AMENDMENT
In the said notification, in the Schedule, for Serial number 12
and entires relating thereto, the following serial number and
entries relating thereto shall be substituted, namely :-
SCHEDULE
Name
S. of the
Headquarter Area to which the jurisdiction shall extend
No. Family
Court
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(i) Limits of Muncipality Dhar including
Cantonment area, if any.
(ii) Limits of Tehsil of the District Headquarter
Tehsil Dhar and limits of outlaying
tehsil Peethampur;
Family and
"12. Court, Dhar
Dhar (iii) Local limits of all such tehsils of the district, in
respect whereof the suits and proceedings of civil
nature relating to matrimonial disputes, covered by
of 1984) [including proceedings under Chapter IX
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (No. 2 of
1974)] are being presently tried by the courts
situated at district headquarter."
म य दे श के रा यपाल के नाम से तथा आदे शानुसार,
(बी. के. वेद )
मुख सिचव
म य दे श शासन, विध और वधायी काय वभाग"
फा. मांक 4342/2022/21-ब (एक) / भोपाल, दनांक 02/11/2022
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33027
4 CRR-2786-2023
9. In the light of the above notification dated 02.11.2022 the objection
regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court Dhar on 21.12.2022 have
no substance. Order dated 23.09.2022 Annexure-P/2 was passed prior to the
amendment in the notification dated 24.03.2014, accordingly the objection
regarding the territorial jurisdiction of Family Court, Dhar is rejected.
10. Now come to the objection regarding want of opportunity of proper
hearing. The proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court Dhar
summarized in para-1.4 of the petition on the basis of Annexure-P/5 discloses that
revision petitioner appeared before the Family Court, Dhar on 14.09.2022 and he
sought time to engage the counsel and the time was granted. Thereafter, on the
next date of hearing i.e. 28.10.2022 revision petitioner did not appear before the
court and court proceeded against him exparte and matter was posted for
24.11.2022 but on further dates he did not appeared and matter was postponed to
16.12.2022 but on that date also he did not appear and family court recorded the
testimony of respondent no.1 as PW-1 and admitted the documents Exhibit-P/1 to
P/2) and postponed the matter for arguments to 19.12.2022 and after hearing the
matter on 19.12.2022. The impugned order was passed on 21.12.2022.
11. Revision petitioner did not appear on further dates also and there is no
material to justify that he was wrongly advised by the counsel. Accordingly the
grounds raised by him that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him has no
substance. After solemnizing marriage with the petitioner, respondent no.1 lived
with him till 02.09.2020 and gave birth to respondent no.2 and 3. Above
circumstances does not indicate that respondent no.1 was not willing to continue
marital tie with the revision petitioner. On the contrary, the stand of respondent
no.1 gets support that due to birth of two girl children she was subjected to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33027
5 CRR-2786-2023
harassment.
12. Revision petitioner is 30 years old and trial court had recorded the
finding that revision petitioner is a contractor and assessed his income to the tune
of Rs.25,000/- per month. In recording the above findings trial court got
corroboration from the affidavit of the revision petitioner filed in
proceedings under section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 in which
revision petitioner have disclosed that his profession as contractor. After creating
responsibility of two children he cannot take excuses that he have no sufficient
sources to bear the expenses of their reasonable maintenance. An amount of
Rs.11,000/- as maintenance for three persons is not excessive. Accordingly,
revision petition has no substance and is dismissed.
(GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE
ajit
