Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101635 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 952 of 2023 Revisionist :- Deepak Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of Up Throgh Principal Secretary Home Gov Up And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dwijendra Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prashant Kumar Singh,Yogendra Sharma Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condontion Application 1. Case called out in revised list. None present on behalf of opposite party no.2. 2. Heard Sri Pradumn Kumar, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Dwijendra Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State are present. 3. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set-aside the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Court No.1, Family Court Firozabad in Misc. Case No. 933 of 2022, under Section 126(2)Cr.P.C., Police Station North Firozabad, District Firozabad. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits, revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2 and he filed the instant revision against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the court concerned, by which his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 5. He further submits, however, there is delay of 82 days in filing the instant revision but delay has been properly explained in the delay condonation application filed in support of instant revision. 6. He further submits, due to paucity of fund revisionist could not file the instant revision in time, therefore, delay condonation application filed by the revisionist should be allowed and regular number be allotted to the instant revision. 7. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits, very casually in paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application revisionist stated that he is very poor person and it is not even stated that what type of work he is doing, therefore, delay condonation application is based on vague facts and the same should not be allowed and accordingly the revision filed by the revisionist should also be dismissed. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. Revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2 and instant revision has been filed by him against the impugned order dated 08.12.2022 by which, his application moved under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the court concerned but it reflects, instant revision is barred by 82 days and in this regard delay condonation application has been filed by the revisionist and from perusal of delay condonation application it reflects, as per revisionist, due to paucity of fund he could not file the instant revision but ground taken in the delay condonation application appears to be vague and in view of this Court, on the basis of such ground the delay of 82 days in filing the instant revision should not be condoned. 10. Accordingly the delay condonation application is hereby dismissed. Order of Revision As delay condonation application filed by the revisionist has been dismissed by this Court, therefore, the instant revision being time barred is also, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 AK Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad