IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision(F) No. 773 of 2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 02.2.2026 Baldev ......Petitioner Versus Lajwanti and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Ms. Kamlesh, Advocate and Mr. Dixit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 20.9.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palwal, in a petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- per month was awarded in favour of the respondents (i.e. Rs. 7,000/- per month to respondent No. 1 (wife) and Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No. 2 (minor daughter).

2. Along with the present revision petition, an application bearing CRM No. 21374 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1248 days in filing the present revision petition, has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that there is a delay of 1248 days in filing the present revision petition, citing the ground that due to communication gap with the counsel representing him before the learned Family Court, he could not appear before the Court concerned. It is further submitted that due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the case was not

2026.02.06 09:38 taken up and the petitioner was not aware of the stage of the case, since he was told that as and when the case is listed, he would receive a notice. However, no notice was received by the petitioner, and he came to know about the proceedings only when conditional warrants in the execution petition were issued against him. 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 20.9.2021 reveals that the maintenance petition was moved on behalf of the wife. The petitioner appeared before the learned Family Court and contested the said petition. However, subsequently on 25.11.2019, the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte due to non-appearance at the time of evidence, despite last opportunity having been granted. Thereafter, vide abovesaid impugned order, the said petition was allowed. Now, after a delay of 1248 days, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the impugned order of maintenance on the untenable ground that he was not aware about the status of the case.

6. The delay of 1248 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 February 02, 2026 Gurpreet Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No