IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1146 of 2010 MD.JAMAL …. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAIMA KHATOON …OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- I.A.No.1515 of 2010 02. 03.08.2010 Present application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the revision application. Heard. Petitioner is husband. He is challenging the ad-interim order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Purnea, whereby on a consideration of materials placed on record, the wife (O.P.No.2 herein) was directed to be paid a lump sum of Rs.900/- per month. It appears that order was passed after allowing the party to file show-causes/rejoinder. It is stated that petitioner had gone to Mumbai and he returned back home on 26.04.2009. Thereafter he obtained certified copy of the impugned order on 27.04.2010. Then he came to Patna and filed the revision application. Except stating vaguely in paragraph 4 of the application that he was away in Mumbai and came to Patna on 26.04.2009, no other supporting document has been placed/made. It further appears that admittedly he obtained certified copy on 27.04.2010, whereas present revision - 2 - application has been filed on 15.07.2010. This delay remains unexplained. This Court thus is not satisfied with the explanation mentioned in the petition for condoning the delay of more than 15 months in filing the revision application. Resultantly, the application (I.A.No.1515 of 2010) filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. Since I have rejected the application seeking condonation of delay, the revision application is also dismissed as having become barred by limitation. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )