2025:CGHC:3613 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 84 of 2025 1 - Smt. Sanjana Modi W/o Shri Avnish Nadan Aged About 27 Years R/o Dhanvariya, Po- lice Station Khaira, District Jamui Bihar State, Present Address- Nepal Gate, Churcha Col- liery, District Korea (C.G.) 2 - Anika Modi Avnish Nandan Aged About 3 Years Minor, Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt Sanjana Modi R/o Dhanvariya, Police Station Khaira, District Jamui Bihar State, Present Address- Nepal Gate, Churcha Colliery, District Korea (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Avnish Nandan S/o Late Brij Nandan Modi Aged About 36 Years By Caste Modi, R/o Dhanvariya, Police Station Khaira, District Jamui Bihar State Present Address- Central Bank Of India, Bakhri Bazar, Distt.- Begusari Bihar ... Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners : Mr. Pritam Kumar Tiwari, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2025, an application for condonation of delay occurred in fling of the instant petition. The delay occurred is 429 days from the prescribed period of the limitation. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner no. 1 is ready to reside with her husband, but the husband/respondent is not at all interested to keep her in his house. During the impugned judgment the husband/respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the court of Principal Judge Family Court Jamui bearing matrimonial case no. 134 of 2022, which subsequently got rejected by the said Family court. Thereafter the petitioners have filed the Criminal Revision before this court which is not deliberate and there is no intention to filed the revision which is bonafide. Hence prays for condoning the delay caused in filing the instant petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents as well as the application for condonation of delay with utmost circumspection. 4. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 states that any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the petitioner(s) or the applicant(s) satisfies the court that they have sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. 5. This Court is of the considered opinion that a bonafide mistake on the part of the petitioners is a good ground for condonation of delay but without bonafide mistake and without unintentional and deliberate delay caused on the part of the petitioners in filing the petition not included in the sufficient cause. The doctrine of equality before law demand that all litigants are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner. 6. In this case petitioners were having the knowledge about the order of the concerned Family court vide order dated 27th July, 2023 from the beginning of the order passed and the wife/petitioner no. 1 did not filed the revision within the prescribed period of time. Another case under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also pending before the other court, which seems to be not a very good ground for causing condonation of delay in filing of the petition. 7. Therefore, I have found that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay of 429 days in filing the instant petition, therefore, I am not inclined to allow the application for condonation of delay and it is hereby dismissed, therefore the present CRR is also dismissed due to barred by limitation. However, petitioners have the liberty to file an appropriate application before the Family court. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza