1. The present miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the Learned Family Court, Bhopal (M.P.), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/wife for seeking interrogatories from the respondent on the ground that the principles of interrogatories under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking information by way of interrogatories from the respondent/husband. It is submitted that the provisions of the CPC are applicable to proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and that the learned Trial Court has misconstrued the applicable legal position by holding that the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , particularly paragraph 72(6)(f), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions relating to interrogatories including Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as well as the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act are applicable in proceedings relating to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned Family Court has not considered the merits of the case and has dismissed the application solely on the ground of its applicability/maintainability. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the learned Family Court has dismissed the application only on the ground of applicability of Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, therefore, the merits of the case are not required to be examined at this stage. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon Mukund Murari Mahto v. Karishma Singh @ Kumari Mubi, CMP No. 457 of 2024, decided by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Further reliance has been placed upon Surendra G. Shankar and Another v. Esque Finamark Pvt. Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No. 928 of 2025, decided on 22.01.2025; Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs and Others v. Special Duty Collector (LA), (2024) 12 SCC 336; Poonam Mansharamani v. Ajit Mansharamani, W.P. No. 5641 of 2015, decided on 16.11.2015 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore; and Bhaskar Tiwari v. Shruti Sharma and Another, W.P. (Crl.) No. 116 of 2024, decided on 05.06.2025 by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.

3. Per contra , learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent/husband submits that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the learned Family Court had awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1,25,000/- per month to the petitioner/wife towards maintenance pendente lite. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/wife preferred Criminal Revision No. 3140 of 2024 (Smt. Priyanshi Singhal v. Shri Mohit Goyal), whereas the respondent/husband preferred Criminal Revision No. 548 of 2025 (Mohit Goyal v. Priyanshi Singhal) . It is submitted that in Criminal Revision No.548 of 2025 preferred by the respondent/husband, the learned Co- ordinate Bench vide order dated 02.09.2025, passed a detailed order and stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, subject to payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner/wife and clearance of the outstanding amount till that date. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.10.2025, the order dated 02.09.2025 was further clarified by the learned Co-ordinate Bench, whereby the respondent/husband was directed to pay all outstanding dues along with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from the date of the application. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.06.2026 common order passed in the aforesaid criminal revisions, it was directed that with the consent of both the parties, the the interim order passed may be continued till the decision of pending application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the Family Court was directed to decide the pending application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as early as possible within a period of nine months and it was also directed that Family Court shall not give unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties to the proceedings and if in the opinion of the Family Court any of the parties to the application tries to delay the trial of the pending application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Court would be at liberty to close right of evidence/cross-examination of such party.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not cooperating with the progress of the case and is adopting tactics which are causing delay in the disposal of the proceedings. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that in view of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to proceedings relating to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the judgment in Rajnesh (Supra) cannot be interpreted to mean that the provisions of Order XI of the CPC would apply to each and every proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the interrogatories sought by the petitioner can be put to the respondent/husband during the course of his cross-examination. Therefore, such interrogatories are neither necessary nor essential for the just and proper adjudication of the case. It is also submitted that the present proceedings arise out of an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., which are summary in nature, and that permitting the procedure contemplated under Order XI of the CPC would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and result in avoidable delay in the disposal of the maintenance application. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma, (2014) 14 SCC 452; Shobarani v. Malti Bai, 2023 SCC OnLine MP 1734; and Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi and Another, (1972) 3 SCC 850.

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been cooperating with the proceedings and has not adopted any tactics intended to delay the trial. It is submitted that the applications seeking interrogatories were filed on 07.04.2026 and were decided by the learned Family Court on 08.06.2026. Therefore, there was no delay attributable to the petitioner in pursuing the said applications. It is further submitted that the affidavit of income filed on behalf of the respondent does not disclose complete particulars regarding his income and financial position. It is contended that certain particulars disclosed by the respondent in the said affidavit are contrary to the Income Tax Returns filed by him. In view of such discrepancies and the incomplete disclosure of income, the petitioner has filed the applications seeking interrogatories so as to obtain necessary information from the respondent for the just and proper adjudication of the maintenance proceedings.

6. Heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. From perusal of record, it is found that that the petitioner had filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking interrogatories from the respondent. The learned Family Court has dismissed the said application solely on the ground that the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC are not applicable to proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Family Court has not considered the merits of the interrogatories.

8. The view taken by the learned Family Court that the provisions relating to interrogatories under Order XI of the CPC are not applicable to proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). The aforesaid aspect has also been considered by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bhaskar Tiwari v. Shruti Sharma and Another, W.P. (Crl.) No. 116 of 2024, decided on 05.06.2025 , wherein, it was held that the provisions relating to interrogatories under Order XI of the CPC are applicable to proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, since the learned Family Court has not considered the application on its merits, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remanded to the concerned learned Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.06.2026 passed by the learned Family Court, Bhopal (M.P.), in MJCR No. 483/2021 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Family Court, Bhopal (M.P.), with a direction to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC afresh, on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. With the aforesaid observation, present petition is disposed off .

12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for information and necessary compliance.