1 2026:CGHC:1963 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 729 of 2023 Narsingh Sahu Son Of Shri Rohit Kumar Sahu, Aged About 31 Years R/o. Type -02, Z-4/4, Railway Loco Colony, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus Smt. Omprabha Sahu Wife Of Shri Narsingh Sahu, Aged About 23 Years R/o. Professor Colony, Sector -03, Street No. 02, Opposite Walfort City, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. 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 19.10.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 2606/2022, whereby, the learned Family Court allowed the application for grant of interim maintenance filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent. 2. It transpires from the cause list that the present criminal revision is suffering from several defects and defaults. On 13.07.2023, when the matter was taken up by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the applicant was granted four weeks’ time to remove the said defects. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 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 137 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 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. 7. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar