2025:UHC:7797 S L. N o. D a t e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 832 of 2024 Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the Revisionist. 2. Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the Respondent. 3. Today, the matter is listed for consideration of the Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 02 of 2024), filed by the Revisionist. 4. Heard learned counsel for both parties on the Delay Condonation Application. 5. Learned counsel for the Revisionist submits that the delay occurred due to the ill health of one of the family members, because of which the Revisionist was unable to prefer the present Criminal Revision within the stipulated period. 6. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent opposes the application, submitting that no medical or supporting documents have been filed to substantiate the plea of ill health. It is further submitted that ₹4,40,000/- is pending towards maintenance and that the proceedings are being delayed on vague and unjustified grounds. The Revisionist has failed to provide any sufficient cause or reasonable explanation, particularly lacking details to explain the day-to-day delay, rendering the claim unreliable. 7. In the interest of justice, and for the sake of considering the prayer for condonation of delay, the learned counsel for the Revisionist was asked whether the Revisionist would be willing to pay a part of the maintenance amount as a condition for condonation of delay. The learned counsel for the Respondent submitted 2025:UHC:7797 that compensation to the tune of ₹50,000/- would be acceptable. 8. The learned counsel for the Revisionist sought time to obtain instructions in this regard. Upon reverting, it was submitted that the Revisionist is not in a financial position to pay any amount at this stage. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that no sufficient or cogent ground has been shown to justify the delay of 119 days; the reason cited, illness of a family member remains unsubstantiated in the absence of any medical record; and the Revisionist has declined to comply even with the proposed conditional payment of ₹50,000/- towards the outstanding maintenance. 10. In light of the above, this Court finds no sufficient cause to condone the delay. 11. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay (IA No. 02 of 2024) is dismissed. 12. Consequently, the Criminal Revision is also dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 02.09.2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c 12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BE D00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.09.02 17:44:44 +05'30' 2025:UHC:7797