1 2026:CGHC:1961 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 972 of 2023 1 - Smt. Radha Bai W/o Siyaram Banjare Aged About 45 Years R/o Qu. No. C-49, Subhash Block, S.E.C.L. Korba, Thana, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Kumari Sneha Banjare D/o Siyaram Banjare Aged About 18 Years R/o Qu. No. C-49, Subhash Block, S.E.C.L. Korba, Thana, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Siyaram Banjare S/o Late Bhaktu Ram Banjare Aged About 51 Years R/o Qu. No. C-49, Subhash Block, S.E.C.L. Korba, Thana, Tahsil And District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aadarsh Rajput, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, 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 11.04.2023 passed by learned Family Court Korba, District – Korba (C.G.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 134/2019, whereby, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance filed by the applicants and directed the respondent to pay total Rs.15,000/- per month to respondents. 2. It transpires from the cause list that the present criminal revision is suffering from several defects and defaults. On 12.10.2023 and 18.06.2024, when the matter was taken up by a Co-ordinate Bench of RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 this Court, the applicant was granted two weeks and two weeks’ time, respectively, 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 64 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