IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.598 of 2010 RAM BILAS SAO, S/O- LATE GAURI SAO R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- AKILPUR, P.S.- AKILPUR, DANAPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SMT. SUSHILA DEVI SO CALLED WIFE OF RAM BILAS SAO 3. MANOJ KUMAR 4. DHARMENDRA KUMAR SO CALLED SONS OF RAM BILAS SAO 5. BABITA KUMARI SON CALLED DAUGHTER OF RAM BILAS SAO NOS. 3 TO 5 UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HER MOTHER AND WEL WISHER, ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + P.O. AKILPUR, P.S.- AKILPUR (DANAPUR), DISTRICT- PATNA. ----------- 4 16.08.2010 I.A. no. 956 of 2010 Present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the present revision application. Heard both sides. Learned Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court , Patna by order dated 25.6.2007 passed in Maintenance Case no. 190(M)/2005 has allowed the maintenance in favour of the applicants including wife (O.P. no. 2) @ Rs.. 2,000/- per month. The opposite parties herein had made the aforesaid application seeking maintenance from the petitioner as they were the wife and three minor sons and daughters of the petitioner- husband and was/were refused to maintain by him. Learned court below has thus granted the aforesaid amount by way of ad- interim maintenance. This order was passed on 25.6.2007. The present application has been lodged in this court with certain defects on 20.4.2010. The present revision application has thus 2 been filed after two and half years beyond the time permissible in law. Hence the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned was passed without any knowledge to the petitioner. He relies on the statement made in paragraph nos. 5 and 8 of the said application. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties produced before this Court the entire order-sheet of Case no. 190M/2005 which is kept on record marked “X”. It appears that on 4.10.2006, the husband-petitioner had appeared by filing Vakalatnama. On 10.1.2007, application for ad-interim maintenance was filed on behalf of the applicants (O.P. nos. 2 to 5) after service of copy on 1.2.2007. Both the parties were present on 20.2.2007. The Court granted opportunity to the petitioner-husband to file rejoinder/show cause but the same was not filed. On 14.3.2007 and 10.4.2007, the Court passed the following orders” “14.3.2007 The opp. party is directed to file the show cause and also the reply of the ad-interim maintenance failing which the opp. party will be debarred from filing of the show cause and the matter will be heard with respect to ad-interim maintenance of the petitioner on the next date i.e. 10.4.2007.” 10.4.2007 It is fixed for hearing of the ad-interim maintenance on the next date when show cause has not been filed by the other side and he is debarred from filing of the show cause in view of the order dated 14.3.2007. The petition of ad- interim maintenance will be heard on the next date on 10.5.07.” Ultimately, the application was heard and in view of 3 the materials placed on record, ad-interim maintenance was allowed in favour of the opposite parties herein. This Court is thus satisfied that the petitioner had made incorrect statements in order to get the application for condonation allowed. It cannot be countenanced. Accordingly the same (I.A. no. 956 of 2010) is rejected. Since I have rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A. no. 956 of 2010), the criminal revision application is accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )