Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65934 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2097 of 2024 Revisionist :- Kishanpal @ Kishnpal Ramesh Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This Crl. Revision has been filed by the revisionist by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 16.02.2024 passed in Misc. Case No.759 of 2023, under section 126(2) Cr.P.C and order dated 125 Cr.P.C, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sambhal at Chandausi,Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case an ex-parte order on the application under section 125 Cr.P.C was passed against the revisionist in favour of wife and minor child fixing amount Rs.5000/- and Rs.3000/-, total Rs.8000/- per month as maintenance, against which he filed an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C with the application under section 5 of Limitation Act. The learned trial court rejected the application under section 5 of Limitation Act vide order dated 16.2.2024 without considering cause for filing the application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C after delay. He further submits that due to revisionist being busy in the treatment of his mother and non communication from his counsel, he could not file the application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C within time that was the reason application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also moved with the application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C but it was rejected, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court dated 16.2.2024 and give him an opportunity of hearing and take part in proceedings against him. Learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A for the State opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that the revisionist did not appear before the trial court and later on he moved an application after inordinate delay and he did not give any sufficient reason for condonation of delay, therefore, delay application has been rejected by the learned trial court. In case his application is allowed heavy cost be imposed on the revisionist. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the revisionist has filed an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C with an application under section 5 of Limitation Act. He mentioned the cause of delay as the treatment of his mother and also non communication about the order by his counsel and later on death of his mother. In considered opinion of this Court, cause shown for delay by the revisionist appears to be sufficient to condone the delay by imposing just and reasonable cost and the opportunity of hearing be also given to him. Accordingly, this criminal revision is allowed. Learned trial court is directed to hear the parties on an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C and pass appropriate order as per law. The application under section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed for costs Rs.10,000/- payable within a period of fifteen days from today and the order dated 16.2.2024 is set aside. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 G.S Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad