SANDEEP AGRAWAL v. SMT. MANISHA SHRIWAS @ MANISHA AGRAWAL
CRR/753/2023 · 2025-07-28
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27202 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27202 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:36855
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 753 of 2023 Sandeep Agrawal S/o Late Sajjan Agrawal Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Main Road, Batauli, Police Station And Tahsil - Batauli, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Applicant versus Smt. Manisha Shriwas @ Manisha Agrawal W/o Sandeep Agrawal Aged About 25 Years (D/o Ramkumar Shriwas), R/o Village- Batauli, P.S.- Batauli, District- Surguja, C.G. At Present Resident Of Near C.M.D. Chowk, Police Station - Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, C.G.
... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vipin Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Yatharth Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board 29 /07/2025
1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant against the
order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned learned Family Court, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.369/2018, whereby learned Family Court has granted Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance to the respondent/wife in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2. The present criminal revision is beyond time as has been reported by the PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.07.30 15:05:11 +0530
2 Registry. Notice was issued to the respondent by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 and as per the Family Court records, it transpires that on 14.08.2019 applicant- Sandeep Agrawal failed to appear before the Family Court for pressing her case for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
3. From perusal of application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the applicant has not given day to day explanation of inordinate delay of 1318 days in filing the revision, as such, the revision is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained.
4. Considering the grounds raised in I.A. No. 01, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 1318 days in preferring the revision.
5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01 is rejected and consequently thereto, the revision is also dismissed.
6. Let a copy of this order as well as original record of this case be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti