Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:130566 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 393 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vivek Sharma And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashish Srivastava,Mishra Vikas Kumar Prabhunath Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anand Kumar,G.A. Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. In Re:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the records. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that certified copy of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 was only received on 29.01.2025 as such criminal revision could not be filed earlier. It was further submitted that revisionist was suffering from several diseases and as such he could not arrange the money for filing the instant criminal revision. He has next submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the criminal revision be condoned. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite part no.2 has submitted that criminal revision against the impugned order is not legally maintainable because statutory remedy of criminal appeal is available under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which has not been availed by the revisionist, which is an abuse of the process of the Court. He has further submitted that the cause shown in filing the instant revision with delay is malafide and not sufficient and as such the delay condonation application may be rejected by this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is apparent that in the instant criminal revision the revisionist have challenged the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/ FTC (Crime Against Women), Moradabad, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is an appealable order under Section 29 of the Act, but the statutory remedy of appeal has not been availed by the revisionist and straightway, this criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist, which is not legally maintainable. It is evident that cause of delay pleaded by the revisionist in the delay condonation application is malafide becuase no documentary proof has been submitted that all the five revisionist were suffering from such illness, that they were not in a position to file the instant criminal revision within the prescribed period of limitation. It is further evident that why certified copy of the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 was only obtained on 29.01.2025 has not been specified. It appears that this criminal revision was filed deliberately with delay in order to harass the complainant/ opposite party no.2 with malafide intention. It is well settled that if the delay condonation application has only been filed to harass the opposite party with malafide intention, then that delay is not liable to be condoned. 6. In view of the above facts, the delay condonation application is hereby rejected, accordingly, the instant criminal revision is also rejected at the admission stage. 7. However, the revisionist may pursue their statutory remedy of Appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if so advised, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.8.2025/AS Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad