HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 2243 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. Ref:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2025 1. Heard Mr. Rama Shankar Upadhyay, learned counsel for revisionist/applicant, learned AGA appearing on behalf of State-opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Aadarsh Mohan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2. 2. Present Criminal Revision has been filed with delay of 351 days. Accordingly, applicant-revisionist has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision. 3. Perused the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. The reasons for the delay have been stated in paragraph 3 and 5 of the affidavit and according to paragraph 3 and 5 the revisionist/applicant has shown her as a poor lady and due to paucity of money she could not file revision within the prescribed period. 4. The order under challenged discloses that the revisionist had received Rs. 60,500/- extra amount against maintenance. Accordingly the reason assigned for delay in paragraph 3 and 5 collapses. 5. The trial court has calculated the payment of maintenance amount on a monthly basis, the payment made by opposite party no. 2 to the revisionist. Thereafter, the trial court has given finding that the revisionist had received Rs. 60,500/- extra. As per order of trial court the aforesaid amount shall be Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Narsingh Pandey, Rama Shankar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aadarsh Mohan Pandey, G.A., Satya Nand Tripathi, Saumitra Dwivedi Smt Pushpa Verma And 2 Others .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) adjusted against maintenance amount to be accrued in future. Such order reflects that the trial court has passed the order after having due consideration of having each facts and circumstances of the case meaning thereby the revision itself has no well grounded. 6. In view of the aforesaid premise, this Court finds that neither the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act nor the present criminal revision has any merit. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected and the present criminal revision is also dismissed. (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) October 1, 2026 Arti CRLRD No. 2243 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- ARTI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad