* 1 * Cri.Appln. 232.2010 11.1.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 311 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATON NO. 311 OF 2009 Shri. Sarjerao Dadu Mane .......Applicant V/S. Sou. Laxmi Sarjerao Mane and anr. .........Respondents * * * * * * Mr. Pradeep Gole, Advocate for the applicant. None for respondent no.1. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for respondent no.2-State. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11 January, 2011. P.C. : 1. This Application is filed for restoration of Criminal Application No. 311 of 2009 for condonation of delay of 191 days in filing Criminal Revision Application to challenge an order of * 2 * Cri.Appln. 232.2010 11.1.2011 award of maintenance to the respondent under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code. 2. As per the application, the application for condonation of delay appeared on the board for the first time on 12th June, 2009. On that date, notice was directed to be issued to the respondent returnable on 30th July, 2009 with further directions to the applicant to deposit the amount payable as per the impugned order and also towards the cost of the application. The applicant claims to have sent notice by R.P.A.D. which returned with remark unclaimed and an affidavit of service was filed in the court by “ ” the advocate for the applicant on 29th July, 2009. However, on 30th July, 2009 when the matter appeared on the board, the advocate for the applicant did not appear and it came to be adjourned to 27th August, 2009. On the adjourned date also, the applicant and the advocate were absent and conditional order came to be passed by the Court directing the applicant to take steps for service within a period of 2 weeks from that date. If the steps were not taken within 2 weeks, the application was to stand dismissed * 3 * Cri.Appln. 232.2010 11.1.2011 without any further reference to the Court. The applicant claims that his advocate was not aware that the matter was on board on 27th August, 2009 and therefore he was not aware of the conditional order passed on that date. The advocate made enquiries about the matter only on 23rd March, 2010 when he learnt for the first time that the application had been dismissed on 27th August, 2009. He then applied for certified copy of the order. Though the certified copy was kept ready by the office on 15th April, 2010, the applicant collected it more than 2 months thereafter, i.e. on 30th June, 2010. The applicant claims that after the certified copy was prepared by the office, the same went missing from the file and it could be traced only on 30th June, 2010. There is nothing to support the claim that the certified copy of the order prepared by the office went missing from the file. Even after the collection of the certified copy on 30th June, 2010 the applicant waited until 26th July 2010 to file the application. Even if the claim of the applicant that the certified copy went missing from the office until 30th June, 2010 is to be accepted, there is no * 4 * Cri.Appln. 232.2010 11.1.2011 explanation for the further delay until 26th July, 2010. In the circumstances, there is no case made out whatsoever explaining the absence much less satisfactory, as well as, the delay in filing the present application. Hence, the application is dismissed. [Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J]