Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010136662024 2025:GAU-AS:7057 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/696/2024 DEBOJIT DAS S/O LATE RAJENDRA DAS R/O VILL- KUSHLAIGURI P.O. PATILADHA, P.S. MANIKPUR DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS ANJANA DAS D/O LATE MAHANANDA SARKAR W/O SRI DEBOJIT DAS R/O VILL BAROBARI P.O. PATILADAHA, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S C BISWAS, MS. U NANDA,MS. J GHOSH,MS A BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A K HUSSAIN, MR. B HUSSAIN Page No.# 2/6 Linked Case : DEBOJIT DAS VERSUS ANJANA DAS (B) ------------ Advocate for : MR. S C BISWAS Advocate for : appearing for ANJANA DAS (B) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 30.05.2025 Heard Ms. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condoning the delay of 230 days in preferring the criminal revision petition. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents/first party filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon on 08.02.2022 claiming total maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month for her and her minor child from the applicant which proceeded in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bongaigaon in Misc Case No.07/2022. In the said case, by final order dated 14.08.2023, the learned jurisdictional Magistrate disposed of the maintenance case by Page No.# 3/6 directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month towards the maintenance of the respondent/first party and Rs. 3,000/- per month towards the maintenance of their minor son. Aggrieved by the final order of maintenance, the accompanying criminal revision petition has been filed. However, while filing the accompanying criminal revision petition a delay of 230 days has occurred for which the present condonation application has been filed. 4. Ms. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the Legal Aid Counsel, having not informed the applicant as regards the passing of the final maintenance order, the delay has occasioned which is beyond the control of the applicant, and hence, prayed to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 5. Per contra, Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the applicant has tried to mislead this court by making false averments under oath to the effect that the Legal Aid Counsel of the appellant has not informed the applicant as regards the passing of the final order, when it is apparent from the Order-sheet of the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court that the applicant was represented by his counsel before the maintenance proceeding, and after filing the written statement both the applicant as well as the applicant’s counsel stopped appearing before the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court for which the matter proceeded ex-parte, and finally was concluded by passing the aforesaid final order. Hence, he submits that this application for seeking condonation is not bonafide, and is liable to be dismissed with cost. Page No.# 4/6 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the contending parties, and also perused the material available on record. 7. It appears that the ground of 230 days in preferring the accompanying the criminal revision petition as stated in the condonation application reads as hereunder:- “7) That the applicant begs to state that, the impugned Final Order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bongaigaon in Misc Case No. 07/2022, but the applicant was totally unaware of the same since the advocate who is the legal aid counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant did not informed the applicant about the passing of the impugned Final Order against him. Thereafter, the applicant came to know from reliable sources about passing of the impugned Final Order and accordingly applied for the certified copy of the aforesaid impugned Final Order on 02.05.2024 only and received the same on 06.05.2024. Thereafter, the applicant after gathering the necessary money came to Guwahati and engaged an advocate, who took few days to prepare this Criminal Petition and filed the same on 12.06.2024 but the same was withdrawn due to some technical irregularity with a liberty to file fresh petition. As such, it caused delay in preferring this instant Criminal Revision Petition.” 8. Reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the only ground urged is that since the Legal Aid Counsel has not informed the applicant as regards passing of the impugned final maintenance order, he could not file the accompanying criminal revision petition within the stipulated time period. 9. It appears that though it has been stated that the applicant came to know from reliable sources about passing of the impugned Page No.# 5/6 final order which is almost after 9 months of passing of the final order, the applicant has not even bothered to mention in the aforesaid pleadings as regards the source, from whom and how the applicant has come to know about the passing of the final maintenance order. That apart, the Order-sheet of the maintenance case of the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court, certified copy of which has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondent/first party before this court indicates that the applicant has appeared before the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court along with his counsel and has also filed his written statement. It also further appears that from 20.10.2022, the applicant along with his counsel appeared on the subsequent dates and has also participated in the maintenance case; however, from 23.02.2023, both the applicant as well as his counsel stopped appearing before the Magistrate’s Court for which the matter proceeded ex-parte against the applicant. Ultimately, the final order was passed on 14.08.2023. A copy of the said certified copy of the Order-sheet is kept on record and marked as “A” 10. Undoubtedly, the power of this court to condone delay is discretionary; however, the power to condone delay cannot be exercised as a matter of course. It is a condition precedent that sufficient and bona fide grounds are to be shown before the court exercises the aforesaid discretion in favour of the applicant. 11. In the present case, it is apparent that the applicant has not disclosed before this court the correct facts which are now established from the Order-sheet of the Magistrate’s Court. Further, the grounds Page No.# 6/6 for condonation are not sufficient and bona fide grounds. That being so, it is not a fit case for condoning the delay in filing the criminal revision petition. 12. Accordingly, the condonation application stands rejected and is disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant