HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 439 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. C.M.A. No.2 of 2025 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. Assailing the final order dated 09.01.2025 passed in Case No.734 of 2022 (Smt. Babli @ Goldi Vs. Mukesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the present revision has been filed alongwith application seeking condonation of delay, duly supported by an affidavit. The operative portion of order dated 09.01.2025, passed on application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under. "अंतिरम भरण-पोषण प्राथर्ना-पत्र आंिशक रूप से स्वीकार िकया जाता है। िवपक्षी मुके श कु मार को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक वह वािदनी श्रीमती बबली को अंतिरम भरण-पोषण हेतु दो हजार रूपये प्रितमाह प्राथर्ना-पत्र योिजत करने की ितिथ 25.05.2022 से अंग्रेजी माह की प्रत्येक 10 तारीख तक अदा करे। पत्रावली में िदनांक 19-2-25 िनयत वािदनी अपना साक्ष्य शपथ-पत्र दािखल करे।" 3. The amount as indicated in the operative portion of order dated 09.01.2025, under challenge, has been awarded after recording satisfaction to the effect that opposite party no.2 is the wife of present revisionist and under compelling circumstances the opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial home. 4. For condoning the delay in filing the revision the following main averments have been made in the present application:- "3. That it is also relevant to mention over here that when revisionist cane in to the knowledge on 18.07.2025 and thereafter revisionist applied for certified copy of order dated 09.01.2025 and after taking certified copy of the impugned order on 18.08.2025 and other record of the case the deponent given it to present counsel namely Sri Sarvesh Kumar Shukla who is filing revision without any delay. 4. That according to facts and circumstances of the case the revisionist is within time and if any delay is treated same is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice." Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Sarvesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukesh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Court No. 2, Hardoi And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid averments made seeking condonation of delay of 134 days it is evident that the same are completely bald, vague and misconceived. 6. Upon due consideration of the aforesaid, this Court finds no force in the application. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. Order on Revision 7. Since the application for condonation is rejected, consequently, the revision also stands dismissed. September 4, 2025 Anand/- CRLRD No. 439 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench