Order on Board

1. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 276 days in preferring the instant criminal revision.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have preferred the present criminal revision challenging the impugned order RDAEHWUALNGAN dated 03.01.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal DsRD iA i E ggnHW iteU a A dl LN lby G y AN Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 319/2023, and the facts stated in the main petition may be treated as part of this application. It is further submitted that the applicants have a strong prima facie case and is likely to succeed in the revision. He also submits that the applicants were initially unaware of the impugned order and subsequently came to know that maintenance had been granted only in favour of the child. Thereafter, the applicants had to arrange the relevant documents and obtain the certified copy of the impugned order, as the earlier counsel was not available, which caused delay. It is also submitted that the applicants are residing in the outskirts of the city, which further contributed to the delay in filing the present revision, and an afÏdavit in support of the application has been filed. Therefore, the delay is bona fide and stands sufÏciently explained. Accordingly, he 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 applicants 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 276 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 "sufÏcient 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 OfÏcer [(2013) 14 SCC 81] while rejecting an application for condonation of delay for lack of su 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 “sufÏcient 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 condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufÏcient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”

14. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion th