Crl R No.31/2025 1 | P a g e S. No.112 Suppl. ,,,HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Crl R No.31/2025 \ SHAKEEL AHMAD GOJER KONSHI …..Petitioner(s) Through: Mr.Ahmad Javid, Advocate. V/s SHAKEELA AND ORS … ..Respondent(s) Through : None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 23.07.2025 1. The petitioner through the medium of present revision petition has challenged order dated 26.11.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bandipora (hereafter referred to as “the trial Magistrate”), whereby in an application filed by the respondents under Section 125 Cr.P.C, interim maintenance of Rs.8000/- in all has been awarded in favour of the respondents. Alongwith the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court on 15.07.2025, Crl R No.31/2025 2 | P a g e whereas the impugned order has been passed on 26.11.2024. As per report of Registry revision petition is delayed by 141 days. In the application for condonation of delay, the explanation for delay that has been offered by the petitioner is that he belongs to a far flung area and has limited access to legal counsel. It has been submitted that the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that the order of maintenance cannot be challenged and that the same had to be complied with. 3. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has limited financial capacity and after receiving the legal advice that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, he decided to file the revision petition. It has been submitted that in case delay in filing the revision petition is not condoned he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused record of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 has been passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bandipora after hearing the parties through their counsel in their presence. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner was not having knowledge about passing of the order sought to be challenged. In fact, the petitioner has not claimed that he was not in knowledge of the said order. The only ground that has Crl R No.31/2025 3 | P a g e been put forward by the petitioner for seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is that he was under impression that the impugned order could not be challenged and because he belongs to a far flung area, as such, he has no access to legal advice. 6. Both these explanations tendered by the petitioner are implausible for the reason that during the proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate the petitioner was represented by a lawyer and, as such, he had access to the legal advice. Thus, he cannot be heard to say that he was under the impression that the impugned order was not liable to be assailed. Petitioner has himself admitted that he is a Government servant, therefore, his contention that he is having meager financial capacity and had no access to legal service cannot be accepted. Although, the Courts while considering the prayer for condonation of delay tend to take a lenient view and lean in favour of deciding the matter on merits rather than disposing of case on the grounds of limitation, yet law of limitation cannot be given a go-by, particularly, when the litigant has failed to tender a plausible explanation for having approached the Court after the prescribed period of limitation. 7. In the present case, as already stated, the petitioner has not given any plausible explanation for delayed filing of the revision Crl R No.31/2025 4 | P a g e petition, as such, delay in filing the revision petition cannot be condoned. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed being without any merit and consequently the revision petition shall also stand dismissed. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 23.07.2025 Sarveeda Nissar 1. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 24.07.2025 15:54