[2026:JHHC:3575] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 91 of 2026 Om Prakash Ravidas@ Ram, aged about 36 years, son of Late Mohan Ravidas, resident of village & P.O.- Angwali, P.S.-Petarwar, District-Bokaro. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Poonam Kumari @ Poonam Devi, aged about 30 years, wife of Om Prakash Ram @ Om Prakash Ravidas, Daughter of Mitthu Ravidas, resident of village- & P.O.- Angwali, P.S.-Petarwar, District- Bokaro. At present resident of village- Tisri, P.O.- Kurknalo, P.S.- Chatrochatti, District- Bokaro. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mrs. Pinki Kumari, Advocate : Mr. Randhir Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Bandana Sinha, A.P.P. ------ 05/ 10.02.2026 I.A. No. 16645 of 2025 has been filed for condoning the delay of 448 days in preferring this petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be the husband of the O.P. No. 2 and in preparation for filing the present petition, the said delay has occurred and in view of that she submits that the delay may kindly be condoned. 3. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that there is no plausible explanation of condoning the delay of 448 days in filing the present petition and further the petitioner is the husband and he is bound to maintain his wife and the maintenance amount is only Rs. 4,000/- per month. On these grounds, she submits that this petition may kindly be rejected. 4. It appears that the challenge has been made in the present petition of the order dated 19.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat (Bokaro), [2026:JHHC:3575] -2- in connection with Original Maintenance Case No. 179 of 2023, by which, the learned court has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2. 5. There is a delay of 448 days in filing the present criminal revision, which has not sufficiently been explained by the petitioner. Needless to note that according to Article 131 of the Limitation Act 1963, the limitation period for filing revision under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C corresponding to section 438 read with section 442 of the BNSS is 90 days from the date of order. Revisional Court can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the delay is satisfactorily explained by the revisionist. If the revisionist was not having knowledge of the order, then the limitation period of 90 days to prefer criminal revision would be computed from the date of knowledge of the order. 6. Sections 438 to 444 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 do not confer a right on a litigant to file revision but the revisional power is only discretionary with the court to see that justice is done in accordance with the recognized principles of criminal jurisprudence. 7. In revision against the order awarding maintenance by Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisional court has no power to re-assess the evidence and substitute its own findings. Although, these are the facts which are to be decided on merits. Here the case in hand petitioner fails to explain the sufficient cause to condone the delay. As such there is no reason to condone the delay of 448 days, in view of that prayer made in the aforesaid I.A is rejected. Consequently, this revision petition stands dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-10.02.2026 Amitesh/-