IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.903 of 2010 SANJAY SINGH, S/O- SINGESHWAR SINGH, R/O- DHANORA, P.O.- KOTHIA, P.S.- AVTAR NAGAR, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. REKHA DEVI W/O- SANJAY SINGH D/O- RAGHUNATH SINGH, R/O- DHANORA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MAUJA DHUDHLA, P.S.- SONPUR, DISTRICT- SARAN AT CHAPRA. For the petitioner : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 5 27.07.2010 I.A. no. 1370 of 2010 Present interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the present criminal revision application. Petitioner is husband. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chapra whereby on consideration of the materials placed on record, the wife (O.P. no. 2) has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 750/- per month as maintenance. Said order was passed on 20.2.2006. Petitioner initially filed a quashing application before this Court on 13.2.2008 with defects. As per the office report, the quashing application was not maintainable. Accordingly, the same was converted into one filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay occurred due to the fact that the order was passed ex- parte. This Court finds from the impugned order that notices 2 were duly served and received by the petitioner, yet he did not choose to appear and contest the claim of maintenance made by his wife. This is what has been observed in paragraph 3 of the impugned order: “3. The opposite party did not appear even after receipt of the notice and consequently, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing.” In that view of the matter, this Court is not satisfied that a case for indulgence by allowing the present application has been made out. The delay of more than two years involved in the present case remained unexplained. There is no merit in this interlocutory application. It is accordingly dismissed. Since the application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected, the revision application also stands rejected as having become barred by limitation. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )