HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 876 of 2024 Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.01 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Man Singh Verma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record. 2. The stamp reporter has reported that the revision is beyond time by 669 days. An application along with affidavit has been filed on behalf of the revisionist to condone the delay in filing the revision. 3. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and submits that the delay is about 2 years, hence the application for condonation of delay deserves to be rejected. 4. It is settled law that all Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference- Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs. National Building Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267, wherein it has been held that if substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference-Ghanshyam Dass & Ors. vs. Dominion of India & Ors; (1984) 3 SCC 46. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Avinash Kumar, Gyanendra Singh Kanaujiya, Pramod Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Man Singh Verma Surendra Kumar Alias Raju .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Keeping in view the above authorities of the Apex Court, the Court should not adopt a hyper technical approach while dealing such matters, therefore, the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application is sufficient to condone the delay. 6. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. The delay in filing the revision is condoned. 7. Office is directed to allot regular number. Order on Revision 8. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.04.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 174 of 2019 (Archana Devi @ Baby and two others Vs. Surendra Kumar @ Raju), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Fatehpur, whereby the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,500/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and and Rs.1000/- per month each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4 as interim maintenance from the date of the application. 9. During the course of argument, learned AGA has pointed out that the learned counsel for the revisionist has remedy of filing recall application against the order of ex-parte interim maintenance, under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the revisionist cannot approach directly this Hon'ble Court challenging the order of ex-parte interim maintenance passed by the trial court, therefore, the instant revision is not maintainable. 10. Learned counsel for the revisionist does not dispute the aforesaid facts and states that he may be permitted to withdraw the instant revision with liberty to move appropriate application under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for recall of the ex-parte order. 11. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. 12. However, it is provided that in case, the revisionist prefers an application for recall of the order impugned within a period of two CRLRD No. 876 of 2024 2 weeks from today, the trial court is expected to decide the said application on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the parties concerned to adduce their evidence, without raising any objection with regard to the delay in moving the said application. September 16, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CRLRD No. 876 of 2024 3 Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad