2026:CGHC:6777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 199 of 2026 Abhishek Sharma S/o Shri Bharatbhushan Sharma Aged About 43 Years Resident Of House No. 479/57, Bhagirathi Bhawan, Saket Colony, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant versus

1 - Smt. Sonal Sharma W/o Abhishek Sharma Aged About 38 Years Resident Of 681, Adarsh Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Ku. Kalanidhi D/o Abhishek Sharma Aged About 8 Years Minor Through Legal Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sonal Sharma, Resident Of 681, Adarsh Chowk, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

06.02.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No.02/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has RAHUL preferred the instant criminal revision against the impugned order dated

DEWANGAN

Digitally

signed by

RAHUL

DEWANGAN

17.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) in M.C.C. No. 1309/2024, however, the revision could not be filed within the prescribed period as the applicant is a poor rustic villager and was not aware of the legal proceedings and limitation for filing the revision. It is further submitted that upon subsequently approaching his counsel and being properly advised, the applicant applied for and obtained the certified copy of the impugned maintenance order and thereafter filed the present revision without any further delay. Hence, the delay caused in filing the instant revision is bona fide, unintentional, and stands sufficiently explained. Accordingly, she prays for condoning the delay in the interest of justice and proceed to hear the revision on merits.

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 97 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 lack of sufficient cause has concluded in Paragraph 15 as follows:

“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant 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 case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any conditi