HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 8452 of 2025 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. representing the State opposite party no. 1 and perused the record. 2. Revisionist Sonia Gupta alias Smt. Sonia Varshney and Km. Astha Gupta have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Revision challenging the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 (corrected vide order dated 07.11.2025) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court") in Criminal Misc. Case No. 451 of 2025, Sonia Gupta v. Mukul Gupta, whereby the Trial Court rejected the application 3Kh, which was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the recall application, and application 5kh which was filed seeking to recall the order dated 09.12.2010 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Maintenance Case No. 365 of 2002. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present criminal revision has been filed, inter alia, on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and has been passed in a mechanical manner, without considering the reasons furnished for the delay in filing the recall application. It has been submitted that opposite party no. 2 stopped making payment of the interim maintenance amount of Rs. 28000/- since June, 2019, on account of which the revisionist could not contact with her counsel before the High Court, who subsequently died on 23.09.2021. It is further submitted that the revisionist came to know about the order dated 09.12.2010 only in May, Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, G.A. Sonia Gupta Alias Smt Sonia Varshney And Another .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 2023. The learned Trial Court failed to take the aforesaid circumstances into consideration while passing the impugned order and held that the present restoration application has been filed after delay of almost 15 years. In the aforesaid premise, a prayer has been made that the present criminal revision is liable to be allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had instituted proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wherein the Trial Court passed an interim order. Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party no. 2 approached this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc. Application No. 26399 of 2007. During the said proceedings, this Court passed an interim order directing opposite party no. 2 to pay an aggregate sum of Rs. 28,000/- per month to the revisionist towards interim maintenance. Opposite party no. 2 regularly paid the aforesaid amount till May, 2019. However, thereafter, he stopped making payment of the interim maintenance. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 19.05.2022. 5. It is further submitted that upon coming to know that the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed, the revisionist moved an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for recovery of the arrears of interim maintenance. In the said proceedings, the Trial Court summoned the original record from the record room. However, the same could not be traced. Consequently, the revisionist could not file the restoration application at that stage. It is submitted that after the original record was received, the revisionist filed the restoration application, which has been rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order without taking into consideration the aforesaid facts. It is, thus, contended that the impugned order has been passed without proper consideration of the relevant facts and is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present Criminal Revision and supported the impugned order. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submitted that no interim maintenance order was passed by the Trial Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said proceedings, the employer of opposite party no. 2 was summoned along with his salary slip. Aggrieved by the said summoning order, opposite party no. 2 approached CRLR No. 8452 of 2025 2 this Court by filing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., wherein this Court directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 28,000/- per month in aggregate, to the revisionist towards interim maintenance. Thereafter, no further effective proceedings could take place in the matter. Opposite party no. 2 duly complied with the aforesaid interim order and regularly paid Rs. 28,000/- per month to the revisionist till May, 2019. 7. It is further submitted that the parent case, i.e. the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was itself dismissed for want of prosecution on 09.12.2010. Despite having received interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per month, the revisionist did not pursue the parent proceedings and, according to learned counsel, deliberately allowed the same to remain unattended with a view to continue receiving interim maintenance. It is contended that there is nothing on record to explain the inordinate delay of about 15 years in seeking restoration of the proceedings. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the assertion of the revisionist that after dismissal of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, she could not contact her counsel before this Court, is wholly misconceived, as the counsel appearing before this Court had no concern with the proceedings pending before the Trial Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the conduct of the revisionist demonstrates that she was primarily interested in receiving interim maintenance and did not diligently pursue the parent proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 9. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 next submitted that the revisionist has already instituted another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court, being Case No. 409 of 2024. If the Trial Court finds the revisionist entitled to maintenance, the same may be awarded in the said proceedings. It is further submitted that seeking restoration of the earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., while simultaneously pursuing a fresh application under the same provision, amounts to pursuing two parallel cases for the same relief. No valid reason has been disclosed as to why the revisionist seeks to pursue two simultaneous proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. while unwanted multiplicity of litigation is not permissible. 10. It is, thus, contended that, in view of the aforesaid facts and CRLR No. 8452 of 2025 3 circumstances, the present Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, we find that the revisionist has failed to furnish any cogent or satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in filing the restoration application. The reasons assigned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay, do not constitute sufficient cause to explain the delay. In particular, the plea that the revisionist could not approach the Trial Court on account of her being required to look after her daughter does not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, furnish a satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any good or sufficient ground to interfere with the impugned order. The present Criminal Revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is, accordingly, dismissed. September 16, 2026 Brijesh Maurya CRLR No. 8452 of 2025 4 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad