Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010219922025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/1089/2025 ANKUR SARKAR SON OF MOTILAL SARKAR R/O- SHASHYABARI NO-2, P/S- SAMUGURI, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782139. VERSUS RINA SARKAR D/O MUKTESHWAR BISWAS W/O ANKUR SARKAR R/O- BRAJAPUR, P/S- HOJAI, P.O. JOGIJAN DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782428 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F HAQUE, MR. A H MOLLAH,MR A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K M HALOI (LEGAL AID COUNSEL), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. F. Haque, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K. M. Haloi, the learned legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By this application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for condoning the delay of 216 days in preferring the connected criminal revision petition challenging the judgment and order dated 18.11.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Hojai in Case No. MR/337/2021, by which the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 4000/- per month for his wife and Rs. 2000/- per month for the child and it was further directed that the maintenance amount to be paid from the date of the filing of the petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is delay caused in the present proceedings sought to be instituted by him and the reasons for the delay has been mentioned in paragraph 6 & 9 of the petition. It is stated in the said paragraph that, the petitioner had not received any summon or notice from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hojai in connection with the aforesaid case at any point of time. It is also stated that, the petitioner was totally unaware of the fact that the case has been registered against him. He further stated that the ex-parte order was given on 18.11.2024, by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Hojai, in the said case directing the petitioner to pay the monthly maintenance allowance to both his wife and the child. It is Page No.# 3/3 further stated by the petitioner that, after the said order was passed by the Court, he came to know of the same only towards the end of August, 2025. Thereafter, he immediately applied for the certified copies and obtained the same on 01.09.2025. Subsequently, the application was prepared and filed, resulting in a delay of 216 days. 4. Mr. Haloi, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, submits that it is apparent from the Court’s order passed in the MR. Case No.337/2021, that on the day when the judgment was delivered, both the parties were present and it is also reflected in the judgment itself that summons were served upon the opposite party. However, in his usual fairness he submits that case may be heard on merits. 5. Upon perusal of the instant application, this Court finds the reasons for the delay being satisfactory and as such, condones the delay of 216 days for the ends of justice. 6. The Registry is directed to register the connected Criminal Revision Petition and listed for admission. 7. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant