IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.18 of 2011 MD. AMRULLAH --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHAKEELA KHATOON --- OPP. PARTIES. For the petitioner : Mr. K. N. Diwakar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 02 11.01.2011 Re. I.A.No. 11 of 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Revision application has been preferred against the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarpur whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- (Three hundred) per month to the daughter till she is married with attaining majority. It appears that the petitioner filed a quashing application before this Court against the impugned order which was presented in the month of December, 2010 which was later converted into a Cr. Rev. application. The limitation expired on 19.05.2006. Hence the present application seeking condonation of delay. The initial application levelling it a quashing application was filed in the month of December, 2010. Therefore, there is delay of more than 04 years in filing the revision application. It is stated in the application seeking condonation that the petitioner is an illiterate man and resides at Kolkata. It is further stated that the petitioner came back to his village in the month of August, 2010 and met with the deponent 2 who is pairvikar of the petitioner in the lower Court and learnt that the impugned order has been passed and revision has to be preferred. It is not the case of the petitioner that order dated 14.2.2006 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court was in absence of the counsel who represented him. Even if a lenient view is taken, in my view, the cause shown in the application seeking condonation is far from being satisfactory. The application seeking condonation is rejected. Since I have rejected the limitation application, the revision application is also dismissed as having become barred by limitation. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)