IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision(F) No. 1724 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 16.1.2026 Vijender Ranga ......Petitioner Versus Sarika .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Suraj Bhan Panchal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaithal, in a petition filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondent.

2. Along with the present revision petition, an application bearing CRM No. 50529 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1064 days in filing the present revision petition, has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that there is a delay of 1064 days in filing the present revision petition, citing the ground that the petitioner was not aware of the complete facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the respondent-wife. It is further stated that the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent-wife was dissolved on 06.2.2024 by a decree of divorce. Subsequently, he came to know about the solemnization of marriage by the respondent-wife with one Ajit during the subsistence of earlier proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner was advised that the said facts constitute substantial grounds to challenge the impugned order. It is submitted that due to the above circumstances, delay in filing the present revision petition occurred, which is bona fide and unintentional.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner.

5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 reveals that the maintenance application was moved on behalf of the wife. The petitioner appeared before the learned Family Court and contested the said application. Thereafter, vide abovesaid impugned order, the said maintenance application was allowed. Now, after a delay of 1064 days, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the impugned order of maintenance on the flimsy ground that he was not aware about the fact and circumstances surrounding the conduct of the respondent-wife.

6. The delay of 1064 days in filing of the present revision petition is an inordinate delay. The grounds which have been taken by the applicant/petitioner do not, in the opinion of this Court, constitute as a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to condone the delay. Consequently, the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing revision petition is hereby dismissed.

7. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the revision petition also stands dismissed.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(KIRTI SINGH)

JUDGE January 16, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No