ash 1 crwp-2945.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2945 OF 2010 Biswajit Ramayodhya Singh .. Petitioner Vs Ratna Vishwajeet Singh & Others. .. Respondents -- Shri Sandesh Patil i/by Shri Prashant Jadhav for the Petitioner. Shri Irfan A. Shaikh for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner- husband. An order was passed against the Petitioner husband under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for payment of maintenance of Rs.1,500/- per month to the wife and Rs.1,000/- per month to his son. An application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 8 months was made before the learned Sessions Court. Delay was in preferring a Revision Application for challenging the order under Section 125 of the said Code. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-husband submitted that he was represented in the proceedings under Section ash 2 crwp-2945.10 125 of the said Code by an Advocate who had earlier appeared for the first Respondent wife in a proceeding filed by her against her first husband. He has invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. He submitted that the evidence on record and in particular the admissions by the first Respondent show that her marriage with her first husband was subsisting when she married to the Petitioner. The evidence on record shows that the son for whom maintenance has been granted is not the son of the Petitioner. He submitted that justice oriented approach ought to have been adopted. He placed on record a compilation containing a copy of the judgment in Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 1998 allegedly filed by the first Respondent against her first husband to show that the Advocate appointed by him was representing the first Respondent in the said proceedings. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. There was long delay of 2 years and 8 months in preferring the Revision Application. Firstly, it is not the case of the Petitioner that he was not aware of the impugned order directing him to pay maintenance. The only relevant averments made in the application for condonation of delay are found in paragraph 3 which read as under: “3. It is submitted that the Applicant was not advised properly by his then Advocates on record to ash 3 crwp-2945.10 prefer the Revision and challenge the said Order. It is the matter of record, the Advocate then representing the Applicant in the aforesaid proceedings for maintenance application, have been in one or the other way were representing the Opponent No.1 also in Civil Proceedings and as such there might have been collusion or deliberate acts of omission in advising this Applicant for preferring the Revision Application and as such the applicant being layman could not prefer the Revision Application within the time so stipulated by law. There as such has been caused a delay of about 2 yrs- 8 months-13days in preferring the Revision Application.” 4. It is not the case of the Petitioner that his lawyer delayed filing of Revision Application. The Petitioner was fully aware of the adverse order passed against him. No particulars have been set out in the said paragraph 3. The Petitioner has not stated that he approached his lawyer on a particular day or in a particular month to seek advise. In fact, the Petitioner has not disclosed in the delay condonation application the steps taken by him after the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate. No particulars have been set out in paragraph 3 of the said application for condonation of delay such as the number of the proceedings in which the Advocate appointed by the Petitioner was allegedly representing the first Respondent. The Petitioner has made very serious allegations against the Advocate. Such allegations could not have been made without giving particulars. If particulars would have been set out in the said application, even the Learned Sessions Court would have adopted the course of issuing notice ash 4 crwp-2945.10 to the concerned Advocate. 5. The averments made in the application for condonation of delay show that there is a complete inaction on the part of the Petitioner for a period of more than two years. Without even stating that after the impugned order was passed, he approached his Advocate for advise, the entire burden has been sought to be shifted on the Advocate. Even assuming that the averments made in the application for condonation of delay are true and correct, it is impossible to condone the delay even by taking a liberal view of the matter. As stated earlier, the delay is of 2 years and 8 months. 6. Hence, no case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction and hence, the Writ Petition is rejected. 7. If the contention of the Petitioner is that the marriage between the Petitioner and the first Respondent is void, it is for the Petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain a declaration. Thereafter, remedy of the Petitioner under Section 127 of the said Code is always open. ( A.S. OKA, J )