HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 244 of 2026 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The present revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 10.9.20254, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded a maintenance of Rs.7000 to the respondent-wife and Rs.3000/- per month to her minor son. 3. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the respondent-wife (respondent no. 2 herein) was initially married about nine years ago to one Abhay Pratap Singh in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, from the said wedlock a male child was born. After the death of her first husband the respondent no.2, on 06.01.2022, has solemnized her second marriage with the present revisionist-husband, on the assurance extended by revisionist- husband that he was employed in government service and was posted as a constable at Police Station Jalesar. It is alleged that such representation materially influenced the decision of the respondent no. 2 and her family to enter into the matrimonial alliance. 4. It is further averred that soon after the solemnization of marriage, the revisionist-husband started subjecting the respondent-wife to physical and mental cruelty, including acts of abuse and assault. It has also been alleged that the revisionist-husband unlawfully misappropriated and retained the entire streedhan and other articles belonging exclusively to the respondent- wife and, thereafter, forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial home. Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raj Narayan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Brajendra Babu .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 5. Upon perusal of the memo of revision, it reveals that the present revision has been instituted after an inordinate delay of 415 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The revisionist has failed to furnish any cogent, convincing or satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay. No sufficient cause, within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, has been disclosed so as to justify condonation of the said delay. The explanation offered is vague, unsupported by material particulars and does not inspire confidence. 6. It is well settled that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and is intended to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. A litigant who is negligent or inactive and fails to approach the Court within the prescribed time cannot claim indulgence as a matter of right. In the absence of sufficient cause being shown, the Court is not empowered to condone the delay merely on sympathetic or equitable considerations. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present revision suffers from delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is dismissed and the instant revision is also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone, without entering into the merits of the case. February 18, 2026 A. Tripathi CRLRD No. 244 of 2026 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- AKHILESH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad