2026:CGHC:7044 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUNAL DEWANGAN CRR No. 206 of 2026 Digitally signed by Dr. Mahendra Kumar Singh S/o Shir Upenda Kumar Singh Aged About 41 KUNAL DEWANGAN Years R/o House No. 349, First Floor, Neeti Khand-3, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad- U.P. 201014 ... Applicant(s)

versus Dr. Smt. Shweta Singh W/o Dr. Mahendra Kumar Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o C/o- Dr. Vimal Kishore Rai, L.I.G. Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District- Raipur, C.G.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : None.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09.02.2026

1.

Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant on I.A. No. 02 of 2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 2155 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the applicant has preferred the present revision petition before this Court against the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby partly allowed the application filed by the non-applicant and amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded towards maintenance to the non-applicant from the date of passing of the order. It is further submitted that the applicant has filed the present Criminal Revision, which was passed without proper service of notice and behind the back of the applicant. It is submitted that the non-applican deliberately mentioned an incorrect address of the applicant, due to which no notice was served upon him. Meanwhile, the non-applicna has initiated execution proceedings on the basis of the said ex parte order. It is further submitted that the non-applicnat is a well-qualified doctor and resides with her father and uncle, who are also qualified doctors running a hospital at Raipur. Despite having sufficient independent means, she was granted maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. without proper appreciation of facts. The applicant is already facing multiple litigations initiated by the non-applicant and has suffered financial hardship due to the impugned ex parte order. The applicant came to know about the impugned order only after appearing in criminal proceedings at Raipur on 11.11.2025, pursuant to an order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, whereafter he applied for and obtained the certified copies and immediately took steps to file the present revision. The delay of 2155 days in filing the present revision is neither intentional nor deliberate but bona fide, and therefore, it is prayed that the same be kindly condoned in the interest of justice.

3.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as also perused the application for condonation of delay in preferring the instant criminal revision.

4.

The primary question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the delay of about 2155 days in preferring the present revision petition deserves to be condoned or not.

5.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary, 2024 INSC 932, while considering the delay, issued some directions and observed as follows:-

“5. The legal position is that where a case has been presented in the Court beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi, 2021 SCC Online SC 1260, it was held by this Court that even though limitation may harshly affect the rights of a party, it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute. A reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, 2023 SCC Online 92 wherein, it was held as follows:

"13. This Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lac