IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.232 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.8.2011 Sanjeev Kumar ….Petitioner. Versus Palvi ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent: None. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition by the husband is directed against the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 40 of 2010 which he dismissed on the ground that the same was time barred and the petitioner has failed to give any reasonable explanation to enable him to condone the delay. The impugned order whereby the maintenance was granted in favour of the wife was passed on 3rd May, 2008. The revision petition was filed two years later and was obviously barred by limitation. The plea taken in the application filed for condonation of delay was that the petitioner-husband came to know about the order of the learned trial Court on 3rd May, 2008 only on 15th July, 2010 and that he was not aware of this order earlier. This application was contested. The learned Sessions 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 Judge found that execution petition under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C was filed before the learned Magistrate on 26th May, 2008 i.e. soon after the impugned order was passed. Notices were issued to the husband in the said execution petition and he put in appearance through his counsel on 16th July, 2008 and sought time to file reply. Thus the husband cannot claim that he did not have knowledge of the fact that an order of maintenance had been passed against him. There is no explanation as to what the husband was doing from 16th July, 2008 till the time the revision has been filed. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the application on the ground that it was time barred. I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. 25th August, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.