Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010091962026 2026:GAU-AS:13748 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/499/2026 CHARANJIT PRODHANI S/O RABINDRA NATH PRODHANI VILL- BAROMERA, P.S. AGOMANI, P.O. AGOMANI DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN CODE- 783335 VERSUS MOUSUMI BALA RAY AND ANR D/O SANI RAM RAY VILL- RAIPUR, PART-III, P.O. GOLAKGANJ, P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM. PIN CODE- 783334. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A MANNAF, MS P KAKATI,MR A K AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. S ISLAM(R1),MR M RANA(R1),MR. M MONDAL(R1) Linked Case : OTC/0/0 CHARANJIT PRODHANI ASSAM VERSUS MOUSUMI BALA RAY ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 ------------ Advocate for : MR ABDUL KAYUM AHMED Advocate for : appearing for MOUSUMI BALA RAY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. Invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant/petitioner, namely, Charanjit Prodhani is seeking condonation of a delay of 1362 days in preferring a criminal revision against an order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri in F.C. (Crl.) Case No. 10/2022, directing the applicant/petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent no.1. 3. It is stated and submitted that upon passing of the impugned ex parte judgment dated 09.05.2022, the applicant/petitioner initially preferred a criminal petition before this Court, which however was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition and thereafter, the instant criminal revision petition has been filed, assailing the order of the Family Court granting maintenance to the respondent no.1. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel drawing attention to the relevant para 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the application, that the applicant was unable to get leave from his employer, BSF while being posted in West Page No.# 3/4 Bengal, and that he obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 21.03.2025. 5. I have perused the narration in para 7, 8, 9 and 10. It is stated that even after getting the certified copy, he could not file the revision as he was not getting leave at that time and after finally getting leave, he could file the application initially as criminal petition, which was withdrawn and subsequently filed the instant criminal revision as already stated above. It is revealed from para 9, that even after withdrawal of the criminal petition on 16.12.2025, the applicant could not file the criminal revision immediately because of his service in West Bengal, and due to not getting leave from his employer. 6. The learned counsel submits that the applicant and the respondent no. 1 had only entered into a marriage agreement, pursuant to which they were supposed to have married, but due to non-cooperation of the respondent no.1, the applicant filed a title suit before the learned Civil Court for cancellation of the said agreement and it was decreed in his favour. Therefore, the order of the learned Family Court granting maintenance is utterly erroneous and unjustified. Though it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel that the respondent no. 1 had filed the the maintenance proceeding during the pendancy of the title suit. 7. I also find from the copy of the impugned judgment of the learned Family Court that the contention of the respondent no. 1 before the learned Family Court was that a social marriage was solemnized between the parties, where after her parental home also gave a significant amount of money to her husband's family and they also started their conjugal life. But subsequently, after she came to her parental home along with her husband Page No.# 4/4 and he went back, he deserted her and did not resume their marital life. 8. The respondent no. 1 has filed a written objection pointing out that the grounds of delay are on the higher side and these have not been sufficiently explained. It is contended that the applicant was not prevented by any unavoidable circumstances to file the revision. 9. I have perused the materials and considered the submissions. 10. From the explanations provided by the applicant, what I mainly find is that the delay took place mainly on account of his not getting leave and that even after withdrawal of the earlier criminal proceeding by way of criminal petition, he did not get leave to file the instant petition. No such documents regarding rejection of leave application has been adduced as part of the application. Even the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained by the applicant with considerable delay in 2025. 11. In my considered view, the quantum of delay of 1362 days is very much on the higher side vis-a-vis the applicable limitation period of 90 days. Further, the explanations provided for the huge delay are inadequate and unconvincing in my considered view. Therefore, this Court does not find sufficient merit in the delay condonation application of the applicant/petitioner and the same accordingly stands rejected. 12. The I/A accordingly stands dismissed with the necessary consequences for the connected revision. JUDGE Comparing Assistant