2025:UHC:11320 SL. No . Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS CRLR No. 675 of 2025 Hon ’ble Ash ish Nait h an i, J. Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the Revisionists. 2. This criminal revision under Section 438/442 of BNSS, 2023 is filed by the Revisionists against the impugned judgments and orders dated 29.03.2014 passed by learned Family Court Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Misc. Criminal Case No.56 of 2013, titled as “Smt. Dipti vs. Suraj Singh”, and in Misc. Criminal Case No.04 of 2014, titled as “Master Tarun vs. Suraj Singh” (both under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.), whereby the learned Family Court Judge, Haridwar was pleased to allow the both maintenance application filed by the Revisionist No.1 under Section 125 CrPC and directed the Respondent to pay Rs.3500/- per month to Smt. Dipti (Revisionist No.1) and Rs.1500/- to Master Tarun (Revisionist No.2) from the date of filing of the application i.e. 27.06.2013 and 06.01.2014. 3. The present matter is listed for disposal of the Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1/2025) moved by the Revisionists. There is a delay of 4123 days’ in filing the present revision. 4. The grounds taken in the delay condonation application by the learned counsel for the Revisionists are that the Revisionist no.1 is an unskilled labourer, earning only a basic pay of Rs.7000/- per month. From the small amount, she has to pay for rent, household expenses and her child’s school 2025:UHC:11320 fees. 5. Learned counsel for the Revisionists further submits that while the Revisionist no.1 was trying to save money to file this case, her brother became seriously ill on 11.02.2017 and was admitted to Himalayan Hospital, his treatment cost around Rs.10 lakhs and the Revisionist had to spend all her savings on it. Later on, in December 2022, the Revisionist no.1’s father passed away, which caused further emotional and financial distress. He further submits that the criminal revision is delayed because the Revisionists did not get appropriate legal advice; the delay caused in the revision is neither deliberate nor intentional. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is a delay of more than eleven years, and the delay has not been satisfactorily explained by the learned counsel for the Revisionists. Therefore, the Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1/2025) deserves to be dismissed. 7. In this view of the matter, Delay Condonation Application (IA No.1/2025) is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal revision is also dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, J.) 17.12.2025 Akash AKASH Digitally signed by AKASH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef7351 8c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224c89 1823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7, cn=AKASH Date: 2025.12.18 10:27:40 +05'30'