1. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 02.9.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC Case No. 472/2017 whereby application under Section 125 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") filed by the applicant/wife for recovery of amount of interim maintenance has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that on 7.11.2017 applicant/wife filed an application under Section 125 (3) of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent/husband for recovery of amount of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.72,000/- granted in her favour. The case was posted for various dates for appearance of respondent/husband.

After appearance of respondent, the applicant filed an application praying that amount of interim maintenance should be given to her by attaching it from the salary of respondent/husband, as he is Government employee. Various dates were fixed for argument on the said application. Thereafter, on 26.8.2019, respondent filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC"). After 4-5 hearings of the case, on 16.3.2020, arguments of both the parties were heard on that application and the case was posted for order on 8.4.2020, but it seems that due to Covid-19 pandemic, cases could not be taken-up for hearing and hearing of the cases got disturbed, despite that on 17.3.2021 applicant had made her appearance, thereafter hearing again got disturbed and on 12.7.2021, the cases were taken-up for hearing in absence of parties and posted the case for arguments on 2.9.2021 and, on the very same day, the application under Section 125 (3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/wife was dismissed for want of prosecution holding therein that applicant was not appeared on that day and also on the last date of hearing, thus, she is not interested to pursue the matter. Hence, this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the application under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/wife is pending since 2017 for recovery of amount of interim maintenance granted in her favour, but instead of making payment to her, learned court below has dismissed the said application for her non - apperance on 2.9.2021. It is submitted that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the cases were not taken-up for hearing and the parties were not known about the date of hearing. When the hearing of the case was started, the case was fixed for arguments on 2.9.2021, that too, in absence of the parties, and on the very same day i.e. on 2.9.2021, her case was dismissed for want of prosecution by the learned Family Court. It is further submitted that in most of the dates of hearing, the applicant personally appeared before the Family Court and even when she was in custody in some other case, then also she make her appearance in custody before the Family Court, which shows that she is very much conscious & serious about her case, as she is necessitous to get the amount of interim maintenance because she is not having any source of income to earn her livelihood but learned Family Court without considering the aforesaid facts, arbitrarily dismissed the application filed by applicant/wife for want of prosecution, which is erroneous and unsustainable in law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/husband would submit that applicant/wife has not shown any valid & sufficient reason for her non-appearance on 2.9.2021, hence, impugned order dated 2.9.2021 is just & proper, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as certified copy of the order sheets of the Family Court, which have been filed by the learned counsel for the applicant.

6. A perusal of the certified copy of the order sheets of MJC Case No. 472/2017 would show that application under Section 125 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for recovery of amount of interim maintainable was filed by the applicant/wife on 07.11.2017, thereafter, the case was fixed for hearing for about 68 times, and on 52 dates of hearing, applicant/wife appeared in person before the Family Court whereas respondent/husband appeared only some of the dates of hearing. Order sheets also reveals that since the respondent/husband is Government employee, hence, the applicant filed an application on 15.10.2018 praying that amount of maintenance should be given to her by attaching it from the salary of the respondent. It is also apparent from the order-sheets that case was fixed for order in the aforesaid application but since the applicant did not file copy of order granting interim maintenance to her, therefore, order could not be passed on the said application. Thereafter, the case was posted for various dates without any substantive action. On 26.8.2019, respondent/husband filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC, again after various dates of hearing, the case was fixed for order on 8.4.2020 on that application. But due to Covid-19 pandemic situation and order issued by the High Court, the court proceedings could not be made out and due to which, hearing of the cases got disturbed. Despite that, on 17.03.2021, applicant/wife appeared in person. Order sheets also reflect that in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the case was taken-up for hearing on 2.6.2021 in absence of parties and posted for further hearing on 12.7.2021. It seems that in between, the Presiding Officer was also changed, therefore, the case was fixed for arguments on 2.9.2021 and on that date i.e. on 2.9.2021, since the applicant could not appear, hence, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution.

7. Aforesaid facts of the case would go to show that applicant/wife is seeker of the relief in this case, that too, of amount of interim maintenance and as has been stated above that out of about 68 days of hearing, she appeared in person for about 52 days of hearing, even she also appeared in custody from jail in this case. It also appears from the order sheets that in the period of Covid-19 pandemic, the applicant make her appearance before the Family Court on 17.3.2021, thereafter, hearing of the cases in the Court had got disturbed due to Covid-19 pandemic and even parties were not known about the proceedings/dates of hearing of the case. In between, the Presiding Officer was also changed and thereafter, in absence of the parties, the case was fixed on 2.9.2021 and on the very same day, the case was dismissed for non prosecution. All these facts would go to show bonafideness of the applicant/wife and reluctancy of the Presiding Officer to provide her appropriate relief, as despite making application by her on 15.10.2018 for recovery of amount of interim maintenance by attaching it from the salary of respondent/husband, the same could not have been considered yet, whereas in such cases, where respondent/husband is salary paid employee, the recovery of interim maintenance is more easy by making recovery from his salary in accordance with law.

8. In view of above, I am of the opinion that non-appearance of the applicant on 2.9.2021 was bonafide. Hence, Impugned order dated 02.9.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur in MJC No. 472/2017 (Smt. Ranjana Pandey v. Praveen Pandy) is set aside. It is directed that the MJC No. 472/2017 be restored to its original number for hearing and disposal of application filed under Section 125 (3) of the Cr.P.C for recovery of amount of interim maintenance filed by the applicant/wife.

9. Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 5 th August, 2022.

10. The criminal revision is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

11. It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of an opinion on merits of the case and the Family Court to decide the aforesaid application filed by the applicant on its own merits in accordance with law.