HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 492 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Sri Awdhesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as perused the record. 2. The instant revision has been preferred seeking following main relief(s):- "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgement and order dated 25/04/2023 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case no 223 of 2012 (Shushma Shukla VS Pramod Shukla) by which the application moved by the opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist u/s 125 CrPC for the award of maintenance to her application 28/03/2012, which has been allowed in very mechanical manner without considering the fact of the case and revision be allowed, in the interest of justice." 3. The instant revision has been preferred alongwith an application (Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2025) seeking condonation of delay of about 781 days challenging the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow (in short "Family Court"). 4. To condone the huge delay of about 781 days, following averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay:- "5. That the present criminal revision is being filed against the impugned judgment and order is ex parte dated 25/04/2023 passed by the Learned APJ-1, Family Court, Pratapgarh, however, the same has been filed with some delay which is neither deliberate nor intentional but due to circumstances beyond the control of the revisionist. 6. That thereafter, the folio was applied for getting certified copy of the impugned order and other papers on 03/09/2025. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mahraz, Anit A Dwivedi, Awdhesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pramod Shukla .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Addl. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 7. That thereafter the Revisionist met his counsel of The Hon'ble High Court and discussed the case with present counsel. 8. That the father of the revisionist suffered paralysis in the year 2018 and remained bedridden and under continuous us medical treatment. The revisionist was solely responsible for his care and due to this reason, he could not take timely steps for filing the present revision. 9. That subsequently, the father of the revisionist expired in the year 2024, leaving the revisionist in great financial hardship and emotional distress as he was fully dependent upon his father. 10. That the mother of the revisionist had already expired earlier in 2022, whereas younger and the elder brother passed away in the year 2010 and 2007 respectively, due to which the entire burden of the family fell upon the revisionist alone. 11. That due to the above compelling circumstances, coupled with severe financial constraints, the revisionist was prevented from filing the criminal revision within the period of limitation." 5. 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. 1 of 2025) seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant revision is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the instant revision is dismissed. September 26, 2025 Arun/- CRLRD No. 492 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench