Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30166 (CHH)

SAHIL PATHARI (MINOR) v. YOGESH PATHARI

CRR/967/2026 · 2026-07-27

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010266172026 2026:CGHC:32317 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 967 of 2026 Sahil Pathari (Minor) S/o Yogesh Pathari Aged About 12 Years Minor Through Mother Smt. Jageshwari Pathari, Age About- 40 Years, R/o- Qr. No. 08/d, Street No.- 14, Sector- 5 Bhilai, Tahsil And District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus Yogesh Pathari S/o Lakhan Lal Pathari Aged About 40 Years R/o- Gali No.- 03, Bharti Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. R.K. Gomasta, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. Heard Mr. R.K. Gomasta, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayer: “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and be pleased to modify the order dated 29/12/2025 in the misc criminal case no. 805/2019 Annexure-A/1, passed by 3rd Additional Principal Judge Family Court Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) and please to enhance the amount of maintenance 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 98 days in filing the revision, as such, the revision is barred by delay and laches and is not liable to be entertained. RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 5. Considering the grounds raised in I.A. No. 01/2026, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 98 days in preferring the revision. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2026 is rejected and consequently thereto, the revision is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar