2026:CGHC:13196 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 92 of 2025

1 - Smt. Kajal Sharma W/o Prashant Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o C/o Shri Purushottam Pandey, Kumhar Para, Gobra Navapara, Rajim District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2 - Minor Shashwat Sharma S/o Prashant Sharma Aged About 3 Years Through Mother Smt. Kajal Sharma, R/o C/o Shri Purushottam Pandey, Kumhar Para, Gobra Navapara, Rajim District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Applicants versus Prashant Sharma S/o Mahendra Kumar Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Shitlapara Kanker, Dist. North Bastar Kanker Presently R/o Jhuniya Para Kanker Dist. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

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

For Applicants : Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Order on Board

19.03.2026

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 dated 03.01.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal RAHUL DEWANGAN Judge, Family Court, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 319/2023, and the facts Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 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 affidavit in support of the application has been filed. Therefore, the delay is bona fide and stands sufficiently 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 "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 fi