Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010236622024 2025:GAU-AS:10142 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1093/2024 SAMINDRA PATHAK S/O LATE DHANESWAR PATHAK, BY PROFESSION TEACHER, RESIDENT OF VILL- NAMATI KHA, P.O. AN DP.S. MAZBAT, DIST. UDALGURI (BTR), PIN-784507 VERSUS ANAMIKA DAS PATHAK W/O SAMINDRA PATHK, D/O SHRI PURAN DAS R/O WARD NO. 8, (NEAR WORKSHOP), P.O. AND P.S. ABHAYAPURI DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN-783384 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S S S RAHMAN, MS S Z HAYAT,MS B H SHIRIN,MR S AHMED,H. BHARALI Advocate for the Respondent : MS. D GHOSH (LEGAL AID COUNSEL), Linked Case : SAMINDRA PATHAK VERSUS Page No.# 2/3 ANAMIKA DAS PATHAK (G) ------------ Advocate for : MR. S S S RAHMAN Advocate for : MS. D GHOSH appearing for ANAMIKA DAS PATHAK (G) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 05.08.2025 None appeared for the applicant on call. 2. Heard Ms. D Ghosh, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the respondent. 3. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 652 days in preferring the connected Criminal Revision Petition under Section 442 read with Sections 438 and 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for setting aside and quashing of the order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), North Salmara, Abhayapuri in Petition No. 1839/2022 in connection with M.R. Case No. 43/2021 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month, Rs. 4,000/- for the petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- for her minor child as interim maintenance payable from the date of the order. 4. The only reason cited for this inordinate delay of 652 days is the health problems of the aged mother of the petitioner and some of his personal problems. 5. As is evident, the reasons cited are wholly devoid of specifics and are grossly inadequate for the Court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner was prevented by good and sufficient reasons from approaching this Court within the time prescribed by law. Page No.# 3/3 6. Consequently, the instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant