Allahabad High Court

NAZIMversusState of UP AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 15 March 2026
Bench: HARVIR SINGH

Holding

The application for condonation of delay of 924 days is dismissed as the revisionist was duly served and participated in the Section 125(3) proceedings, and no sufficient ground exists for condonation.

Summary

Nazim filed a criminal revision and a separate application seeking condonation of a 924‑day delay, alleging that he had not been served any summons or notice in the recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court examined the affidavit and found that Nazim had actually participated in the proceedings, as evidenced by the order dated 22‑01‑2020 and his filing of a written statement. The court held that the claim of non‑service was unsubstantiated and that the litigant’s financial difficulties did not constitute a sufficient ground for condoning such a long delay. Relying on the precedent set in Shivamma (Dead), the court concluded that no good ground existed for condonation. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and the revision was consigned to the record.

Issues considered

Whether a delay of 924 days in filing a revision and a condonation application can be condoned under law.
Whether the revisionist was served summons or notice in the Section 125(3) recovery proceedings.
Whether the litigant’s financial circumstances justify condonation of the delay.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125(3)

Subjects

condonation of delay
Section 125 CrPC
maintenance proceedings
revision
court procedure
financial hardship

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1648 of 2024

Nazim
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus

State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Aman Srivastav, Braham Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Azhar Ahmad, G.A.

Court No. - 86
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Order on:- Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of
2024

1. List has been revised. None has appeared for the parties.

2. Besides the present revision, an application for condonation of delay in
filing the present revision has also been moved, seeking condonation of
924 days.

3. Ground taken in the application for condonation of delay was perused
and the revisionist in paras 7 and 8 of the affidavit has taken the following
grounds in respect of the condonation of delay, which reads as under:-

"Para No. 7:- That the revisionist has not been served any summons or
notice with regard to the recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of
Cr.P.C. which was filed by the opp. party no. 1 on 7.10.2023 in Misc.
Case No. 897 of 2023 (Smt. Reena Parveen Vs. Mohd. Nazim).

"Para No. 8:- That the learned counsel for the revisionist Sri Omveer
Singh, Advocate, Amroha who is a practicing advocate at Amroha
informed the revisionist that recovery proceedings 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. has
been filed by the opp. party no. 1 against the revisionist. The revisionist
applied certified copy of application dated 7.10.2023 which was received
by the revisionist on 2.9.2024. The true certified copy of application and
order sheet dated 2.9.2024 and entire order sheet from the date of
7.10.2023 up to 11.9.2024 are being filed herewith and marked as
CRLRD No. 1648 of 2024
2

Annexure No. 1 and 2 to this affidavit."

4. The revisionist has stated that he was not served any summon or notice
with regard to recovery proceedings, but has participated in the
proceedings initiated against the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
which is evident from paragraph no. 3 of the order dated 22.1.2020
passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha and also
filed written statement in his behalf. The revisionist was not having
knowledge of the pendency of the petition moved under Section 125
Cr.P.C. on behalf of opp. party, the ground taken by the revisionist neither
sufficient nor convincing, but false on the face of record.

5. It is needless to say that, every case has to be decided on its own merit,
but the conduct of, the litigant and the grounds raised in the application
for condonation of delay are equally important and merely because the
revisionist was facing financial crises and could not file the present
revision is likely to make a substantive ground for none payment of
maintenance. Moreover, having regard to the law laid down in the case of
Shivamma (Dead) (Supra), no good ground has been made in filing the
application for condonation of delay of 924 days and the application for
condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed.

6. Hence, the delay condonation application is accordingly dismissed and
no further order is required to be passed in the present revision.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the present revision is consigned to
record.

(Harvir Singh,J.)
March 16, 2026
Gss

Digitally signed by :-
GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…