HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 867 of 2025 Court No. - 92 HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J. Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 Of 2025 1. List has been revised. Learned counsel for the revisionist is present. However, none is present for opposite party no. 2, though represented through counsel. 2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision, which is delayed by 2420 days. Besides the instant revision, parties are ad litem on one or the other pretext. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for the revisionist that an ex parte order dated 22.6.2018 has been passed against him by the Principal Judge, Jhansi in Petition No. 473 of 2017 (Smt. Priyanka Versus Ranveer Patairiya) but he was not aware of any such order passed by the Principal Judge, Jhansi. However, a perusal of the order dated 22.6.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi reveals that service upon the revisionist was duly effected and order to that effect was passed on 5.4.2018 for proceeding against the revisionist and finally a sum of Rs. 3000/- was fixed as interim maintenance to be paid by the revisionist to opposite party no. 2 on monthly basis. 3. In para 18 of the affidavit accompanying the present revision, a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, being Petition No. 251 A of 2015 (Ranveer Patairiya Versus Smt. Priyanka) has been filed by the revisionist Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Atul Kumar Srivastava, Kalp Dev Mishra, Punit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Bahadur Singh, G.A. Ranveer Patairiya .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) before the Court of learned Principal Judge, Chhatarpur (State of M. P.). Apart from that, opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Chhatarpur (State of M. P.), on which, learned Principal Judge, Chhatarpur (State of M. P.). has awarded a sum of Rs. 2000/- as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 to be paid by the revisionist on monthly basis. 4. It is settled law that every case be heard on its own merits and should not be dismissed merely on technical grounds, but in the present case both the parties are ad litem for one or the other grievance or dispute, that is arising out of matrimonial discord and both the parties have appeared in Case No. 251 A of 2021 (Ranveer Patairiya Versus Smt. Priyanka) before the Principal Judge, Chattarpur (M. P.) and in that case Rs. 2000/- was fixed as interim maintenance. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist is not clear as to whether the said amount is being paid regularly or not. 6. Perusal of the order dated 22.6.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi reveals that the notice on revisionist was duly served and an order dated 5.4.2018 was passed proceeding ex parte against the revisionist. 7. Learned counsel for revisionist has taken the ground that in the month of October, 2024 he came to know from reliable sources that an order dated 22.6.2018 has been passed against him, but did not disclose as to what was the reliable source of information by which the revisionist got information of the order dated 22.6.2018, under challenge and other ground of financial crisis has also been taken, but this can only be considered if the order was in the knowledge of revisionist and he was unable to manage financial assistance, but it is not the case of the revisionist. The revisionist has taken the sole ground of being ignorant of the order dated 22.6.2018, which is under challenge. 8. No other reason, whatsoever, has been taken in the application for condonation of delay. 9. Having regard to the grounds taken by the revisionist for filing application CRLRD No. 867 of 2025 2 for condonation of delay and the reasons explained, despite the fact that the parties were ad litem in respect of maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC and petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, it cannot be considered and believed that, revisionist was not at all aware of the impugned order passed against him. Moreover, the service of notice has also been upheld in the impugned order dated 22.6.2018, despite there is delay of 2420 days, which is equal to six and half years in filing the present revision. The delay explained in the delay condonation application and the accompanying affidavit, is neither reasonable nor sufficient. The said application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and is rejected as such. Order on Revision 10. Since application for condonation of delay has been rejected, no order is required to be passed on the revision. September 4, 2025 HR CRLRD No. 867 of 2025 3 (Harvir Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad