- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision against order dated 20-8-2001 passed in case No. 58 of 1998, Kailash v. Lali, relating to police station Rani Ki Sarai District Azamgarh, under Section 126, Cr. P. C.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. for the State. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that Smt. Lali O. P. No. 2 in the present revision had filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. against the revisionist Kailash in the year 1990 in the Family Court, Azamgarh which was registered as case No. 777 of 1990, Lali v. Kailash. It was decided ex parte on 18-10-1997 and an order was passed requiring the revisionist to pay to Smt. Lali a sum of Rs. 300/- per month as maintenance. The revisionist moved an application for setting aside that ex parte order which was registered as Criminal Case No. 58 of 1998. This application was allowed on 20-8-2001 by the trial Court on the condition of payment of Rs. 3,600/- to Smt. Lali within a period of 15 days being maintenance amount for the period of one year, as the revisionist had not paid any amount towards her maintenance. It was further provided that in case of default in payment of the above amount within 15 days the application for setting aside ex parte order of maintenance shall stand rejected. The revisionist did not comply with that order and filed the present revision before this Court on 20-12-2001 alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. There was 17 days delay in filing the revision. It was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the applicant could not file the revision in time due to illness of his father. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned A. G. A. for the State.
(3.) THE applicant has sought condonation of delay in filing the revision on the ground that he could not file the revision in time due to illness of his father. THE applicant has nowhere disclosed as to when his father had fallen ill and when did he recover nor name of the disease from which his father was suffering was mentioned in the application nor any medical certificate has been filed to show that his father was ill. On the other hand, it is to be seen that the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was filed in the year 1990. It was allowed ex parte on 18-10-1997. THE revisionist's application for setting aside the ex parte order was allowed by the trial Court on the condition that he should pay Rs. 3,600/- to his wife, Smt. Lali being arrears of maintenance for one year, pointing out this fact that the revisionist had not paid any amount to his wife so far. Time of 15 days was allowed to the applicant to make the above payment, but instead of making deposit in accordance with the order of the trial Court, he preferred to file revision in this Court and that too after expiry of the limitation period. His learned Counsel did not appear on the dates, i. e. 2-1-2002 and 10-1-2002, fixed for hearing, so the case was ordered to be put up in ordinary course. Anyhow, it is to be seen that the applicant's application for setting aside the ex parte order was not rejected by the trial Court but it was allowed on payment of arrears of maintenance allowance for one year only. THE applicant did not make compliance of that order but proposed to file this revision and that, too, beyond limitation. His assertion is that he could not file revision in time due to illness of his father but taking into consideration the previous conduct of the applicant as well as that the allegation regarding illness of his father, is not substantiated by any evidence, I do not find any good ground for allowing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The application for condonation of delay in filing the revision is, therefore, rejected.;