JUDGMENT :

(Order on C.M. Application No.1 of 2023)

1. Heard Shri Shashank Shukla, learned counsel for revisionist, Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned A.G.A-I for the State-opposite party No.1 and perused the material placed on record. No counsel appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2.

2. As per the report of the Stamp Reporter of this Court, this revision is barred by limitation and has been filed with delay of 1088 days.

3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant submits the present application has been filed with prayer to condone the delay in filing the present revision. He further submits that the revisionist immediately filed an objection but he became ill and was not in contact with his counsel and thereafter, when he came to know that an ex-parte order had been passed by learned court below, immediately a recall application was filed and then the Covid-19 outbreak happened, thereafter, he was informed that his case has been dismissed. He further submits that when the revisionist received a recovery certificate, then he contacted a new counsel and he came to know about the impugned order. He further submits that due to aforementioned reasons, the delay in filing this revision is not intentional or deliberate, thus, the present application may be allowed. He further submits that impugned order dated 15.06.2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Family Judge FTC New, Gonda to pay the maintenance of amount of Rs.2000/-per month from the date of application filed by the opposite party No.2 is illegal and passed without application of mind, thus, it is liable to be set aside and reversed.

4. Learned A.G.A-I has opposed the contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist/applicant and submits that there is no plausible reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application for delay in filing the present revision and he further submits that the order impugned in this revision was passed in the year 2018, since, then more than five years have passed but there was no step taken by the revisionist for challenging the impugned order and now this revision has been filed only with the intention to harass the opposite party No.2 and to deny her rightful claim of maintenance as provided under Family Courts Act. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 2000/-per month for the opposite party no. 2, which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to her, who is entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied, thus, the present application for condonation of delay may be dismissed.

5. After considering the arguments of learned Counsels for the parties made at the Bar, it transpires that the explanation as given in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application in filing the present revision is neither acceptable nor trustworthy since revisionist/applicant was already in court below, therefore, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the proceedings in court below. In my view, there is no explanation what to say of satisfactory explanation as to why the matter was not taken with due earnest and reasonable expediency and the present case was filed after delay of 1088 days before this Court.

6. The expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal/revision may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial ju