ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the Respondent – State.

2. The present application seeks condonation of delay of 34 days in preferring F/Criminal Revision Application No. 35782 of 2026 challenging the judgment and order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajula, Amreli in Criminal Misc. Application No. 33 of 2025.

3. The applicant has explained the delay by stating that after pronouncement of the impugned judgment, certified copies were obtained, legal advice was sought and necessary documents required for filing the revision application were collected. It is contended that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but occasioned due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.

4. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Tahir Saiyed for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C.M.Shah for the respondent – State.

5. Learned Advocate Mr. Tahir Saiyed for the applicant submits that the applicant has paid an amount of Rs.5,92,000/- on 24.09.2026 and that, as on date, no amount of maintenance remains outstanding. Learned Advocate further submits that there is a delay of 34 days in preferring F/Criminal Revision Application No. 35782 of 2026, challenging the judgment and order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Rajula, Amreli, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 33 of 2025, and requests that the delay of 34 days may be condoned.

6. The law relating to condonation of delay is no longer res integra. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a liberal approach should ordinarily be adopted while considering applications for condonation of delay so as to advance substantial justice. The Court observed that refusal to condone delay may result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold and cause of justice being defeated.

7. In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court has observed that the length of delay is not material; what is material is the acceptability of the explanation. It was further held that unless mala fides or gross negligence are imputable to the party seeking condonation, the Court should lean in favour of deciding matters on merits.

8. The Supreme Court has also reiterated in several subsequent decisions that while “sufficient cause” must be established, the expression should receive a pragmatic and justice-oriented interpretation where refusal to condone delay would result in denial of a statutory remedy and where no serious prejudice is demonstrated by the opposite side.

9. In the present case, the delay is of 34 days. The explanation furnished by the applicant cannot be said to be lacking in bona fides. There is nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any ulterior motive. Equally, no irreparable prejudice is shown to be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned. On the contrary, refusal to condone the delay would result in the applicant being deprived of an opportunity to challenge the impugned judgment on merits in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

10. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings and considering the fact that considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

11. The delay of 34 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application is condoned. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid term.