Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The court has the authority to condone delays in filing appeals or applications to ensure substantial justice is served to the parties involved (!) .

2. The applicant filed a Criminal Revision Application challenging an ex-parte order passed by the Family Court under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., with a delay of 112 days, which they sought to be condoned (!) .

3. The delay was explained by the applicant as being due to the need to arrange funds, seek legal advice, and other related factors, which contributed to the delay (!) .

4. The court noted that the applicant had sufficient time to file the revision and emphasized that all delays should be properly explained, although a flexible, pragmatic approach is encouraged rather than a pedantic one (!) (!) .

5. The principles guiding the court's decision include the importance of doing substantial justice, the understanding that delays are not necessarily deliberate or malicious, and that justice should not be defeated by technicalities (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. The court referenced the relevant legal principles that support a liberal approach to condoning delays, emphasizing that justice deserves to be prioritized over strict procedural technicalities (!) (!) .

7. Considering the facts, circumstances, and principles outlined, the court decided to condone the delay of 112 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application (!) .

8. The decision reflects a balanced, rational approach aimed at ensuring justice is not obstructed by procedural delays, provided they are satisfactorily explained (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.