IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.225 of 2010 MOULVI MD. ABULESH @ ABULAISH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Bibi Semaiya Khatoon ------ 3/ 06.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Order in the case is passed on 18.11.2008. Limitation for filing the revision is expired on 16.02.2009 and this revision petition is filed on 21.01.2010. Delay is explained that after applying for certified copy through Pairvikar petitioner left for Goa for his livelihood. After returning, contacted the Pairvikar and thereafter, taking initiative for filing of this revision then only revision petition could be filed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that now, wife, Opposite Party no.2, has married with another person. So, she is not entitled for the maintenance. That can be considered by the Court, who passed the order itself. Such scope is there under Section 127 of the Cr. P.C. otherwise after passing of the order, petitioner left for his livelihood without having obtaining of even certified copy cannot be taken as excusation on his behalf for contending the delay. This much of act has been deliberately done by him. Accordingly, condonation petition is rejected. Since the revision petition is time barred, it is also rejected. shail (Mandhata Singh, J.) Excuse