Allahabad High Court
SANJIV KUMAR KANAUJIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the delay could not be condoned and dismissed the revision as barred by limitation.
Summary
The revisionist, Sanjiv Kumar Kanaujiya, filed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order dated 16 September 2019 that directed him to appear before the court, but he failed to comply. The revision was filed after a delay of 2,251 days, and the revisionist sought condonation of this delay. The court found the reasons for the inordinate delay unsatisfactory and, while being lenient, imposed no costs. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was rejected. Since the revision is barred by limitation, the court dismissed the revision.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 2,251 days in filing a criminal revision can be condoned.
- Whether the criminal revision is maintainable despite the delay.
Subjects
- criminal revision
- delay condonation
- limitation
- family court order
- maintenance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 364 of 2026
Sanjiv Kumar Kanaujiya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Satya Nisth Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 87
HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of
2026
1. Heard Sri Satya Nisth Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and
learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the present criminal
revision has been filed along with delay condonation application as there
is delay of 2251 days in filing the present criminal revision.
3. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated
16.09.2019, whereby the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mirzapur, directed the revisionist to appear before the Court; however, he
has failed to comply with the said direction. The revisionist has also
sought to challenge the subsequent proceedings, but has neither
challenged any order granting interim or final maintenance nor annexed
the relevant order sheets to demonstrate whether any proceedings have
taken place after 16.09.2019.
4. The reasons assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay
are not found sufficient to satisfactorily explain such inordinate delay.
5. This Court, taking a lenient view of the matter is not imposing any
costs upon the revisionist or his counsel for wasting the valuable time of
the Court and proceeds to dismiss the application seeking condonation of
delay.
CRLRD No. 364 of 2026
2
6. Accordingly, this application is rejected.
Order on Criminal Revision
Since application seeking condonation of delay in filing this revision has
been dismissed vide order of date, the revision being barred by limitation, is
accordingly dismissed.
(Praveen Kumar Giri,J.)
April 20, 2026
DKS
Digitally signed by :-
DEEPAK KUMAR SRIVASTWA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…