Crl. Misc. No. 32527 of 2010 and CRR No.1801 of 2010 Sham Sunder v. Smt. Hemlata and another Present : Ms. Monisha Sahota, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner. *** Crl. Misc. No. 32527 of 2010 The Crl. Misc. application has been filed seeking condonation of 183 days’ delay in filing the revision petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is unaware of the law of limitation and he was under bona fide impression that there is no limitation of filing the revision before this Court. However, when the petitioner approached his counsel for filing the revision before this Court, then he came to know that delay had already occurred in filing the same. Therefore, it is prayed that delay of 183 days in filing the revision petition be condoned. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances which is supported by an affidavit of the petitioner, there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay in filing the revision petition. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. application is allowed and the delay of 183 days in filing the revision petition is condoned. Main Case Respondents Smt. Hemlata and her minor son Satvik filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner for the grant of maintenance. The marriage between the petitioner and Smt. Hemlata (respondent No.1) was Crl. Misc. No. 32527 of 2010 and [2] CRR No.1801 of 2010 solemnized on 9.3.2003. From the said marriage, they had a son namely Satvik (respondent No.2). On account of the matrimonial dispute between them, respondent No.1 wife of the petitioner and her minor son filed a petition for grant of maintenance. The respondents had pleaded that the petitioner was running a chemist shop at Faridabad and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, they prayed for grant of maintenance to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioner denied the allegations made by the respondents. It was submitted that though he was running a chemist shop but denied that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Besides, it was stated that respondent No.1 was running a beauty parlour shop under the name and style of Lata Beauty Parlour and earning more than Rs.12,000/- per month. The learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon after considering the evidence and material on record has vide order dated 1.10.2009 awarded Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amount as has been awarded is unduly high and the petitioner is having monthly income of Rs.2600/- which is evident from his Income-Tax Return (Ex.P5). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that the petitioner who is running a chemist shop can surely afford to pay Rs.5000/- per month to his wife and son (respondents) as has been ordered by the learned District Judge, Family Court, Gurgaon vide impugned order dated 1.10.2009. In the Crl. Misc. No. 32527 of 2010 and [3] CRR No.1801 of 2010 circumstances, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the Crl. Revision petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 10, 2010 amit