IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.2627 of 2025 Decided on : 24.09.2026 Ashok Kumar Applicant/petitioner Versus Lambi Devi & others Non-applicant/respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant- petitioner : Mr. K.B Khajuria, Advocate. For the non-applicant- respondents : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Legal Aid Counsel. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral ) Cr.MPM No.2627 of 2025 By of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition that has been preferred by the applicant/petitioner against the order dated 31.12.2024, passed by the Court of learned. Principal Judge, Family Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P in case Reg. No.69 of 2021, titled Lambi Devi & others vs Ashok Kumar, in terms whereof, a 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 monthly maintenance of Rs 5,000/-has been awarded by the learned Court below to applicant No.1 and Rs. 3,000/-each to applicants No.2 and 3 before it, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as the wife had initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the present applicant and as the order passed therein was assailed by way of an appeal and as the applicant was confident that he would succeed in the appeal, it is on this count that delay has occurred in filing of the present revision petition. 3. Learned Counsel further submitted that as the applicant was under the bonafide impression that the maintenance awarded under the Domestic Violence Act would be set aside in appeal, and as learned Appellant Court to the contrary upheld the order, rather than, allowing the appeal of the present applicant and now as there were two orders of maintenance in favour of the wife, which was not permissible in law, therefore the delay in approaching the Court was bonafide. Accordingly, he prayed that the application be allowed by condoning the delay of 290 days in filing the revision petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the non-applicant submitted that the justification given in the application for condonation of delay and that too of 290 days 3 delay is not plausible explanation. She submitted that it is not as if the order in the proceedings under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was passed at the back of the present applicant. By referring to the order passed by the learned Court below, she submitted that the applicant herein, was duly represented by his counsel before the learned Court below and as per her, even in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it was not the case of the applicant that he was not aware of the adjudication of the said matter by the learned Court below. Accordingly, she prayed that the present application being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application as also the reply filed thereto, we are of the considered view that no case has been made out by the applicant for condonation of 290 days delay in filing the revision petition. 6. The order in the application filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was pronounced on 31st of December 2024. A perusal of the order demonstrates that the same was pronounced in the presence of learned counsel Sh. Madan Rawat representing the present applicant. Thus, in the present case either the applicant was unrepresented before the learned Court below or his lawyer was absent when the present application was decided. 4 Infact, as has been submitted by the learned Legal Aid Counsel also, there is no averment made in the application also for condonation of delay that the applicant was not aware of the adjudication that was made by the learned Court below on 31.12.2024. 7. That being so, in our considered view, the petitioner should have approached the Court by way of revision petition either within the period of limitation or within some reasonable period thereafter. 8. The delay of 290 days in approaching the Court, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be not an inordinate delay. The explanation given in the application why the revision petition was not filed within period of limitation is as under:- “3. It is submitted here that respondent No.1 filed two proceedings against the petitioner No.1 one under D.V Act and another was filed under Cr.PC. Complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was instituted on 13.07.2021 before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Dalhousie and after one month on 28.08.2021, the respondent instituted application under Section 125 Cr.PC for maintenance before the Family Court Chamba. 4. That the maintenance under DV Act was granted on 08.02.2023 against which the petitioner filed appeal on 17.06.2024, which was partly allowed on 24.07.2025. However, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC was 5 granted on 31.12.2024. The petitioner was under impression that the maintenance under DV Act would be set aside in appeal but the ld. Appellate Court upheld the order regarding maintenance. Now, there are two orders of maintenance in favour of respondent No.1 which is not permissible under law.” 9. We are not satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid paras of the application. In fact, as was urged by the learned counsel for the applicant, the reason given by the applicant for not filing the revision petition within the period of limitation is that as the applicant had preferred an appeal against an order passed by the Court in the proceedings initiated against him by his wife under the Domestic Violence Act and as he was confident that he would succeed in the said appeal, it was on this count that he did not prefer the revision petition in this case. 10. We fail to understand this logic for the simple reason that it is not as if ipso facto had that appeal been allowed in his favour then the same would have automatically resulted in setting aside of the order passed by the learned Court below in the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.PC. 11. Both being independent proceedings, the aggrieved party was bound to assail them both independently within the 6 period of limitation or within some reasonable time thereafter. 12. As has been submitted by the learned Legal Aid Counsel also, with the efflux of time and with the expiry of period of limitation, a right stands crystallized upon the non-applicant, which cannot be taken away by this Court by a stroke of pen by condoning 290 days delay in filing the revision petition, without cogent justification. This is more so as the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that the non-filing of the revision petition within the period of limitation was bonafide. 13. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, as we do not find any merit in the application, praying for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition, the same is dismissed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge September 24, 2026 (meera)