1 2026:CGHC:5582 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 1470 of 2024 1 - Smt. Arti Tandon W/o Kewal Singh Tandon Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village And Post, Dhour, P.S. Jamul, Tehsil, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Present Address At Village Birejhar, P.S. Ghumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Nihal Tandon S/o Kewal Singh Tandon Aged About 8 Years (Deleted) Natural Guardian Smt. Arti Tandon. R/o Village And Post, Dhour, P.S. Jamul, Tehsil, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Present Address At Village Birejhar, P.S. Ghumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Miss. Ruhi Tandon D/o Kewal Singh Aged About 5 Years Natural Guardian Smt. Arti Tandon. R/o Village And Post, Dhour, P.S. Jamul, Tehsil, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Present Address At Village Birejhar, P.S. Ghumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tiyanshu Tandon D/o Kewal Singh Tandon Aged About 3 Years Natural Guardian Smt. Arti Tandon. R/o Village And Post, Dhour, P.S. Jamul, Tehsil, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Present Address At Village Birejhar, P.S. Ghumka, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus Kewal Singh Tandon S/o Domar Singh Aged About 35 Years Occupation Constable Urla Police Station, Raipur, R/o Village And Post, Dhour, P.S. Jamul, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : None. For Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advcoate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. None appears nor is any representation made on behalf of the applicant. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 “ It is, therefore, prayed that, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and modify the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 and direct for the maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 also in the interest of justice. ” 3. The present criminal revision is beyond time as has been reported by the Registry. 4. From perusal of application for condonation of delay, it is apparent that the applicant has not given day to day explanation of inordinate delay of 137 days in filing the revision, as such, the revision is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained. 5. Considering the grounds raised in I.A. No. 01/2024, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 137 days in preferring the revision. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2024 is rejected and consequently thereto, the revision is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar