Baljeet Singh @ Baljeet Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.1492 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-0 Thana- District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Baljeet Singh @ Baljeet Kumar Singh Son of Dinanath Singh Resident of Village - Karmaini Gaji, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Gudiya Devi Wife of Baljeet Singh (Baljeet Singh) Resident of Village - Gangwa, P.S.- Sidhwaliya, District- Gopalganj (Gopalganj) ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the State :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-09-2022 No one appears for the petitioner to press this application. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State is present.

I.A.No. 1 of 2019 This application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the present revision application. According to the petitioner, he had no knowledge about the impugned order because after filing of the written statement he had gone outside station. He claims to have got knowledge of the order only later on after about 11 months.

The present revision application has been filed on or about 27.12.2019, thus there is a delay of about 1 year 2 months

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1492 of 2019(3) dt.16-09-2022 2/3 and 17 days.

On merit of the case, this Court has noticed that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj has allowed a maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the applicantwife. The findings recorded in the impugned order shows that the marriage between the parties is admitted. The applicant-wife has no source of income whereas her husband works in radio programme and evidences have come that he earns Rs.30,000/- per month and has also got 5 bighas of land.

In totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that in the application seeking condonation of delay the petitioner has failed to show any cogent reason much less sufficient reason to condone the delay. There is an inordinate delay of about 1 year 2 months and 17 days. The petitioner was well aware of the on-going case but he did not take care of his own case after filing of the written statement. In such circumstance, the prayer for condonation of delay is not fit to be allowed. The limitation petition is dismissed. As a result of this, the revision application also fails. Let the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gopalganj proceed to execute the impugned judgment as expeditiously as possible.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1492 of 2019(3) dt.16-09-2022 3/3 If the petitioner has not paid the maintenance amount to his wife, this Court finding that the maintenance case was filed in the year 2014 itself and for more than 8 years the petitioner has kept engaged his wife in fighting litigations, directs that the petitioner shall be liable to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost to his wife and the same shall be realised while executing the impugned judgment as expeditiously as possible. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/- U Note: The ordersheet duly signed has been attached with the record. However, in view of the present arrangements, during Pandemic period all concerned shall act on the basis of the copy of the order uploaded on the High Court website under the heading 'Judicial Orders Passed During The Pandemic Period'.