HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1440 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. In Re: Crl. Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay is sufficient. 3. Accordingly, the delay in filing the revision is condoned. 4. The application stands allowed. In Re: Criminal Revision 5. The present criminal revision has been preferred assailing the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. IX, Varanasi, in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 2024 (Rohan & Others v. State of U.P. and Others), arising under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Badagaon, District Varanasi. By the said order, the learned appellate court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the revisionist, thereby setting aside the condition directing payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- imposed by the learned trial court towards lump sum maintenance, while maintaining the direction with respect to the monthly maintenance payable to the revisionist's wife. 6. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist is a daily wage labourer and was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the trial court, and as such, the impugned order is ex-parte in nature. It is, therefore, submitted that indulgence of this Court is warranted in the interest of justice. 7. However, except for the bald submission that the impugned order was passed ex-parte, learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ashutosh Tiwari, Brahma Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Rohan And 5 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the order impugned. 8. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, [(2021) 2 SCC 324], has laid down detailed guidelines to be followed by the learned trial Courts. 9. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 13, 2025 Shafique CRLRD No. 1440 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad