HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 433 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Application for condonation of delay/I.A. No.1 of 2025) 1. The application under consideration is an application seeking condonation of delay of 1411 days in filing the revision in terms of Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 (in short "Act of 1984") challenging the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by the Family Court, Pratapgarh in Case No.79 of 2018 (Smt. Kusum Yadav and others Vs. Raja Ram), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the Family Court has awarded the meager amount of Rs.4000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of application. 2. In terms of order dated 28.08.2025, the opposite party No.2 - Smt. Kusum Yadav is present before the Court who has been identified by her counsel Shri Krishna Gopal, Advocate who has filed his Vakalatnama, which is taken on record. 3. Revisionist is not present though he ought to be, as the date in the matter i.e. today's date was fixed with the consent of the counsel for the revisionist after considering his statement that the revisionist is ready to settle the dispute by way of mediation and also that in order to show the bona fide it was also stated that a draft of Rs.50,000/-, would be provided to opposite party No.2 on the date fixed, which is evident from order dated 28.08.2025. 4. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the revisionist is not ready to settle the dispute by way of mediation. Therefore, this court heard the parties on the application under consideration. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Umesh Pratap Yadav, O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Raja Ram .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. The following averments have been made for condoning the delay of 1411 days, in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay based upon which parties advanced their submissions - "2.That the present criminal revision has been filed by challenging the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.)/Additional Family Court, District Pratapgarh, in Application Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Bearing Case No. 79 of 18 Titled As 'Smt. Kusum Yadav And Others Versus Raja Ram', Police Station Lalganj, District -Pratapgarh for grant of maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/ (Rupees Four Thousand) from the date of filing of application i.e. 04.09.2010 as well as against the impugned order dated 25.04.2025, for Non-Bailable Warrant and Recovery Certificate in the matter of Criminal Misc. Case no.467 of 2020 under Section 128 Cr.P.C. tiltled as 'Smt. Kusum Yadav versus Raja Ram' passed by the Learned Principal Judge Family Court, District - Pratapgarh. 3- That the Revisionist after got the knowledge about the impugned orders dated 25.07.2019 and 25.04.2025, Revisionist has come to consult his counsel on 03.06.2025 and thereafter, he applied for certified copies and after taken the same, he contacted to another counsel Shri Umesh Pratap Yadav and he demanded some papers, which were provided to him. 4- That Counsel of the Revisionist has prepared this present Criminal Revision without any delay. 5- That delay in filing present criminal revision is neither intentionally or delebetary same was occurred due to undue reason which is not in the capacity of Revisionist. 6- That delay in filing present criminal revision is libel to condone because there is no fault on the part of Revisionist. 7- That in view of the above delay in filing the instant criminal revision is neither deliberate nor intentional and the same has taken place due to aforesaid unavoidable circumstances, which were beyond the control of deponent/revisionist, as such the same is liable to be condoned and revision is liable to heard on merit, in the interest of justice." 6. Upon due consideration of above quoted paragraphs of the affidavit this court is of the firm view that in fact no explanation has been given for condoning the huge delay of 1411 days. In this view of the matter as also that the meager amount has been awarded by the Family Court towards the maintenance, this court finds that the application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the CRLRD No. 433 of 2025 2 application for condonation of delay is rejected. (Order on the Memo of Criminal Revision) Since the application for condonation of delay has been rejected, accordingly, the criminal revision cannot survive and the same is also rejected. September 15, 2025 ML/- CRLRD No. 433 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench