IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Rev. No. 1064 of 2016

with

I.A. No. 1680 of 2017

---

Lalan Kumar Ram, son of late Sachidanand Ram, resident of village,

Mouza Khanichak, PO Dewanchak, PS Meharma, District Godda

....

...... Petitioner

Versus

Pratima Devi, w/o Lalan Ram, resident of village, Mouza Khanichak,

Paharpur, PO Dewanchak, PS Meharma, District Godda at present

residing at Gangta Khurd, PO+PS-Godda(T), Dist.-Godda

....

...... Opp. Party

---

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Lakhan Chandra Roy, Adv.

Mrs. Mridula Thakur, Adv.

For the State

: Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, APP

---

06/22.11.2019

I.A. No. 1680 of 2017

This application has been filed seeking condonation of

delay of 331 days in filing this criminal revision petition challenging the

order dated 18.06.2015 passed in Maintenance Case No.9 of 2013.

In this application, the petitioner has stated that after

notice was issued to him in Maintenance Case No.9 of 2013 he tried to

amicably settle the dispute with the opposite-party and it was finally

resolved between the parties.

By the order dated 18.06.2015 in Maintenance Case No.9

of 2013, the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month

to his wife as monthly maintenance. Vide Annexure-1, a compromise

petition has been produced alongwith this criminal revision petition.

This compromise is dated 04.01.2016 and it was executed in connection

to G.R. Case No.1251 of 2012. An affidavit on compromise of the

dispute between the parties has also been produced. This is also

dated 04.01.2016.

Thus, by the time order for maintenance was passed in

Maintenance Case No.9 of 2013, no compromise was affected between

the parties. Apparently, the petitioner has made a false statement in

2

I.A. No. 1680 of 2017. A party who approaches the Court with unclean

hands dis-entitles himself of the discretionary remedy. Moreover, the

petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for not filing the criminal

revision petition within time and he has failed to explain the delay of

331 days in filing the petition.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 1680 of 2017 is dismissed.

Consequently, Cr. Rev. No. 1064 of 2016 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

R.K.