1 2026:CGHC:14411 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 76 of 2025 Utkarsh Gupta S/o Harishchandra Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Dev Nagar, D-13, Amleshwar, Police Station Amleshwar, Tahsil Patan, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Payal Sharma W/o Utkarsh Gupta Aged About 24 Years R/o Infront Of Gaya Bai School, Street No. 1, Ward No. 4, Gaya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Rudranath Gupta S/o Utkarsh Gupta Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Payal Sharma (Non-Applicant No. 1), R/o Infront Of Gaya Bai School, Street No. 1, Ward No. 4, Gaya Nagar, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Applicants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondents : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.03.2026 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present revision has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer: “ It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the revision and further be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 18-07-2024 passed by Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Annexure A-1) in Criminal Case No.358/2019, whereby the application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CRPC preferred by the wife and child was allowed and it is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to the non-applicants, in the interest of justice. ” RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 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 82 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. 02/2025, I do not find any good ground to condone the delay of 82 days in preferring the revision. 6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 02/2025 is rejected and consequently thereto, the revision is also dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar