Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Iliyas Siddiqui vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 5 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45429
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 387 of 2025
Revisionist :- Mohd. Iliyas Siddiqui
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Home Affairs Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sangeeta Verma,Pramod Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
(Order on I.A. No. 03 of 2025 in re: Application Seeking Condonation of Delay)
Heard Ms. Sangeeta Verma, learned counsel for revisionist and Shri S.P. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State.
By means of the revision, revisionist namely Mohd. Iliyas Siddiqui as impeached the order dated 02.09.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Gonda (in short "Family Court") in Criminal Case No. 563 of 2015 filed by Smt. Shahin Bano W/o revisionist (opposite party no.2 herein) and Imran S/o revisionist (opposite party no.3 herein) impleading revisionist as opposite party.
By the order under challenge, the Family Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. According to the order under challenge dated 02.09.2022, revisionist is under obligation to pay ? 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and ? 2,000 to opposite party no.3 and the said amount so indicated as per the order impugned is payable with effect from the presentation of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The operative portion of the order dated 02.09.2022 reads as under :-
?????????? ?? ????????? ???? ???-???? ???????? ????-125 ??????????, ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? 26.08.2015 ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????????? ???-1 ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???-3,000/- (??? ???? ?????) ???????? ?????? ????? ? ???????? ???-2 ????? ?? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???-2,000/- (?? ???? ?????) ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ?? 26 ????? ?? ??? ????? ????????? ???? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???-???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ???-???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??, ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????, ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ???-???? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ???-???? ?????? ?? ???????? ?????
The present revision has been filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 969 days and to condone the delay, the reliance has been placed on para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. The said paragraph reads as under :-
6. That the learned trial court by its judgment and order dated 2.9.2022 has allowed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C against the revisionist and since the deponent is doing the daily labour he had already been suffered from the financial crises on account the case filed by the opp.party no2 against the revisionist and huge amount had been incurred in contesting the said case and thereafter the deponent could not assign the work of labour properly and that is why he could not met with his counsel as he had been suffering from acute financial crises as he has only earning from doing the labour as such the deponent could not apply the certified copy of the judgment and itw as in the month of May 2025 when the trial court has issued the R.C against the deponent, he had some how arranged the amount and applied for the certified copy of the order on26.5.2025 and after taking the certified copy of the judgment and order and other papers he had arranged the amount and rushed to the Lucknow in the third week of July 2025 i. e.17.7. 2025 and contacted to Sangeeta Verma Advocate and requested to file the revision who has examined the documents and prepare the revision and file the same without any further delay
A bare perusal of the aforesaid paragraph that same is completely vague and accordingly, this Court is of the view that explanation to condone the delay of 969 days is not sufficient.
For the aforesaid reason, this Court is of the view that the application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Consequently, the revision is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.8.2025
Mohit Singh/-
