1 2025:CGHC:40428 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 93 of 2024 Manoj Kumar Mehar S/o Shri Shatruhan Lal Mehar, Aged About 40 Years Permanent R/o Village Samdil Tahasil And Police Station Takhatpur District Mungeli, Police Station Takhatpur District Mungeli, Presently R/o Village Nevra Bhunda) P.S. And Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1. Shivrani Bai Mehar W/o Shri Manoj Kumar Mehar, Aged About 39 Years R/o From Their Walimata Shivarani Bai Mehar W/o Manoj Mumar Mehar, R/o Village Samdil, Presently R/o Village Mama Bhancha, Police Station Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Manoj Kumar Mehar, Aged About 19 Years R/o From Their Walimata Shivarani Bai Mehar W/o Manoj Mumar Mehar, R/o Village Samdil, Presently R/o Village Mama Bhancha, Police Station Mungeli, Tahsil And District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 3. Varsha Kumar D/o Shri Manoj Kumar Mehar, Aged About 16 Years Through Walimata Shivrani Mehar, The R/3 Varsha Kumari Mehar R/o Village Samdil Tahasil And Police Station Takhtpour District Mungeli Presently R/o With Father Manoj Kumar Mehar Village Nevra (Bhunda) P.S. And Tahsil Kota District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vijay K. Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmi Kashyap, Advocate. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.08.14 18:49:23 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12/08/2025 1. The present criminal revision has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned learned Family Court, Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.27/2023, whereby learned Family Court has partly allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and granted a maintenance amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favor of respondent No. 01, and Rs. 2,000/- each in favor of respondent No. 02 and respondent No. 03, total amount Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents. 2. The present criminal revision is beyond time as has been reported by the Registry. Notice was issued to the respondent by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2024. 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 74 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. 01/2024, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 74 days in preferring the revision. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2024 is rejected and consequently thereto, the revision is also dismissed. 6. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Family Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti