2026:CGHC:7103 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN CRR No. 113 of 2024 Avinash S. Singh S/o Sunil E. Singh, Aged About 49 Years Address - Avinash Singh, House No. 27, Hasan Colony, Near Nootan School, Tikrapara, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Permanent Address - Gautam Vihar, Deopuri, House No. 24, Deopuri, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus Aaron A. Singh (Minor) S/o Avinash S. Singh, Aged About 14 Years Through Natural Guardian Mother Jacklin Masih Singh, Age About 49 Years, Address - Near Shiv Mandir, Gali No. 2, Raja Talab, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Mobile - 9907635350.

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Shreshta Gupta, Advocate.

For Non-applicant : Ms. Anamika Jain, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

09.02.2026

1. Heard Mr. Shreshtha Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Anamika Jain, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant as well as on I.A. No. 01 of 2024, which is an application for condonation of delay of 243 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted the applicant has preferred the present revision petition challenging the order dated 14.02.2023 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby the application filed by the non-applicant was partly allowed and the present applicant was directed to pay maintenance to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- per month. It is submitted that, in the ordinary course, the revision petition ought to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days from the date of the impugned order. However, the applicant had no knowledge of the order dated 14.02.2023. He came to know about the said order only on 22.08.2023, when the police authorities visited his residence in connection with recovery of the alleged arrears of maintenance. Immediately upon gaining knowledge of the ex-parte order, the applicant, without any deliberate delay, moved an application before the learned Family Court seeking setting aside of the ex-parte order dated 14.02.2023. The said application was finally decided on 06.12.2023. It is further submitted that the applicant has been passing through a severe financial crisis and due to his poor financial condition, he was unable to arrange the necessary funds to file the present revision petition within time. After somehow arranging the required finances, the applicant contacted his counsel at Bilaspur and has now filed the present revision petition. The delay in filing the revision petition is thus neither intentional nor deliberate, but has occurred due to lack of knowledge of the impugned order, bona fide legal proceedings pursued before the Family Court, and financial hardship. The applicant has been diligently pursuing his remedy and no prejudice will be caused to the non-applicant if the delay is condoned, whereas irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant if he is denied an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. Learned counsel for the applicant therefore most respectfully prays that this Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the revision petition and hear the matter on merits, in the interest of justice.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the non- applicant opposes the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for not preferring the revision within the prescribed statutory period. It is contended that a delay of about 243 days is inordinate and cannot be brushed aside lightly, as condonation of such prolonged delay defeats the very object of the law of limitation, which is to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. It is further argued that the reasons assigned by the applicant lack of knowledge for proceeding of Criminal Revision as well as filing of limitation of revision petition. The non-applicant, the