1 2026:CGHC:1967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 465 of 2023 Ritesh Saha S/o Dilip Saha Aged About 43 Years R/o Kumahar Para, Maitri Sangh Gali Ahead Of Kali Mandir, District Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Lipika Saha W/o Ritesh Saha Aged About 42 Years R/o Old Market Bacheli Camp No. 1 Tahsil Bacheli District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Divyanshi Saha D/o Ritesh Saha Aged About 11 Years Minor Through Non Applicant No. 1 Natural Guardian, R/o Old Market Bacheli Camp No. 1 Tahsil Bacheli District South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Palash Prakash Rajani, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13 /01/2026 1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 26.11.2022 passed by learned Magistrate 1st Class Bacheli, 2 District – South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Misc. Criminal Case No.08/2016, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondents and directed the applicant to pay Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.2,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. 2. It transpires from the cause list that the present criminal revision is suffering from several defects and defaults. On 03.05.2023, when the matter was taken up by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Pankaj Bhaskar, was granted six weeks’ time to remove the said defects. 3. Despite the lapse of a considerable period thereafter, the applicant has failed to remove the defects till date. The record further reveals that the present revision has been filed with a delay of 55 days. However, no application for condonation of delay, supported by a proper affidavit, has been filed on behalf of the applicant. 4. The applicant has shown complete negligence and lack of diligence in prosecuting the present revision. Even after availing sufficient opportunity granted by this Court, the defects have not been cured, nor application for condonation of delay has been filed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the revision. 5. It is well settled that a litigant who approaches the Court must do so with clean hands and due diligence. The negligence in 3 prosecuting the present revision, coupled with the unexplained delay and persistent non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court, clearly attracts the doctrine of laches, thereby disentitling the applicant from any discretionary relief. 6. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil