JUDGMENT Nure Alam Chowdhury, J.: The application u/s. 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner Satrughna Adak, husband of the opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Sonali Adak is directed against the order dated 21.3.97, passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate 2nd Court, Uluberia, District Howrah in M.C. 53/94 (T.R. No. 110/94) registered on an application u/s. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the wife-opposite party praying for maintenance of Rs. 500/- for herself and Rs. 400/- each for her two daughters. Ld. Magistrate by his impugned order allowed the application of the wife-opposite party in part and ordered granting maintenance of Rs. 300/- for herself and Rs. 200/- each for her two minor children per month with effect from the date of the order i.e. 21.3.97, to be paid by the husband-petitioner herein besides litigation cost of Rs. 200/-. 2. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner-husband in this Hon'ble court with delay of more than one month praying inter alia for a composite Rule upon the State and the wife-opposite party for condonation of delay in filing the Revisional application and setting aside the impugned order with further prayer for stay of all further proceedings in the said case. A separate application for stay of all further proceeding, before the Ld. Magistrate was filed about eleven months of filing the aforesaid application with the composite prayer indicated above. 3. Heard the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner, perused the impugned order and the records of the case. 4. It is found that the Ld. Magistrate considered all the points raised before this court. This court also does not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order of granting maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- to the wife and Rs. 200/- per month for the two minor children in these hard days, with unusual escalation of price-index of essential articles for bare living. 5. The revisional application has been filed with delay of more than one month without stating the Number of days of delay and explaining each day's delay. The explanation for delay is a model of vagueness and such explanation cannot be considered as satisfactory and sufficient for condonation of delay. 5. The revisional application has been filed with delay of more than one month without stating the Number of days of delay and explaining each day's delay. The explanation for delay is a model of vagueness and such explanation cannot be considered as satisfactory and sufficient for condonation of delay. Besides the instant application is misconceived and not maintainable in law in view of the prayer for composite Rule for condonation in delay in filing the revisional application and setting aside the impugned order as unless the application for condanation of delay is allowed the question of considering the Revisional application does not arise at all and each of the applications namely the application for condonation of delay and the application for revision have distinct and separate entity. 6. The application has also been considered on merits and this court does not find any merit in the application. 7. This application therefore fails and is dismissed. The application for interim order, heard along with this application also stands disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.