Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49092 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 412 of 2025 Revisionist :- Raju Sriwastav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record. The instant revision has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned recovery order dated 05.12.2024 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Suit No. 136/11/2024 filed by opp.no.2 under section 128 Cr.P.C., order dated 28.01.2020 passed by Learned Additional Principal Judge- IInd, Family Court, Bahraich, in Suit no. 1046/11/18, u/s 125 Cr.PC. and entire proceeding of suit of maintenance filed by opp.no.2 against revisionist this revision may be allowed in the interest of justice." The instant revision has been preferred alongwith an application (Crl. Misc. Application No. 3 of 2025) seeking condonation of delay of about 1169 days challenging the impugned order dated 28.01.2020 passed by the Additional Principal Judge- IInd, Family Court, Bahraich (in short "trial court"). To condone the huge delay of about 1169 days, following averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay:- "3- That after passing the recovery citation on 5.12.24, deponent should filed revision against this order till 4.1.25 as per limitation rule but he could not do so. It is further submitted that revisionist had no enough money so he could not file this revision within time. 4- That revisionist is poor person and working as labor, he has big responsibility of his old, sick parents so he could no collect enough money for filling this revision in time. 5- That opp.no.2 is not wife of revisionist but due to her misconduct, revision is suffering from these expenses. 6- That due to lack of money, the deponent could not prefer this revision within time." To the view of this Court, the aforesaid averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay are completely misconceived. Thus, the application (Crl. Misc. Application No. 3 of 2025) seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant revision is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the instant revision is also dismissed. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Arun/- Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench