Judgment 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 2] By the present petition filed by the petitioner (original complainant) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, she prayed that the order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 on 6.2.2012, thereby rejecting the said application of the petitioner for condonation of delay, be quashed and set aside. 3] The factual matrix, which can be summarised, is as under:- The petitioner herein is the original complainant and respondent nos. 2 to 6 are the original accused in R.C.C. No. 123 of 2008 (Exh.’A’ to the petition) filed by the petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur, which was lodged by the complainant alleging that her daughter, namely Jayshree married with accused no.1 i.e. Deepak who is respondent no.2 herein on 31.5.2005. Accused nos. 2 and 3 i.e. respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein are the parents-in-law of deceased Jayshree; whereas accused no.4 i.e. respondent no.5 herein is the sister of her husband. Accused no.5 i.e. respondent no. 6 herein is the relative of her husband. It is alleged that after the marriage, the petitioner’s daughter Jayshree was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein on account of non-fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs.30,000/-for the purpose of digging bore. It is also alleged that due to the said harassment her fetus died in her womb, but no medical treatment was provided to her. Hence, she suffered infection, which resulted into jaundice and she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ambajogai where doctor declared her dead on 7.4.2008. Hence, the complainant filed the first information report before the police personnel, who avoided to register the same. Hence, the complainant filed R.C.C. No. 123 of 2008 under Section 498A, 304B, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur. 4] Accordingly, statement of the complainant on oath was recorded and the matter was posted for evidence before charge. The complainant examined the witnesses. Hence, the complainant filed R.C.C. No. 123 of 2008 under Section 498A, 304B, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur. 4] Accordingly, statement of the complainant on oath was recorded and the matter was posted for evidence before charge. The complainant examined the witnesses. However, learned trial Court held that there was nothing on record to prove that there was any intention of the accused persons to cause death of Jayshree and entire complaint appeared to be after thought, and hence, consequently, the trial Court dismissed the complaint by order, dated 2.12.2010 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said order is annexed herewith at Exh.’B’. 5] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the petitioner/complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon challenging the correctness and legality of the said order, but since there was delay in filing the said Revision Application, the petitioner preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 for condonation of delay along with the said Criminal Revision Application for the grounds as stated therein. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon dismissed the said application for condonation of delay by order, dated 6.2.2012. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court and preferred present petition and prayed for quashment of the said order, dated 6.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon. 6] Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner is a rustic villager and she is a woman and she and her husband are the sugarcane harvesting labourers and she remains out of their village for harvesting of sugarcane and they had gone for the said purpose in November, 2010 and returned to their village in May, 2011. It is also submitted that the petitioner was suffering from Jaundice, and therefore, she could not attend the court. He further submitted that in July, 2011 the petitioner met her advocate and came to know about the fate of the complaint i.e. dismissal of the complainant, and hence, after obtaining certified copies thereof, she filed Criminal Revision Application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, but since there was delay of about 9 months in filing the same, she filed an application for condonation of delay. However, the said application came to be dismissed alleging that the petitioner failed to assign satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Revisional Court ought to have considered the grounds put forth by the petitioner for condonation of delay liberally and opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to prosecute her Criminal Revision Application on its own merits, and accordingly, urged that present petition be allowed. 7] Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 countered the said arguments and opposed the present petition vehemently and submitted that there was substantial delay of about 9 months in preferring Criminal Revision Application preferred by the petitioner herein before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, which was not explained by her satisfactorily, and therefore, learned Revisional Court has rightly rejected the application and no interference therein is called for in the present petition. As regards the ailment of jaundice suffered by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not filed any medical certificate to substantiate the said contention. Moreover, learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner has not accounted for the delay caused in filing Criminal Revision Application properly and no satisfactory reason was assigned by the petitioner for condonation thereof. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has failed to plead and prove ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay, and therefore, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for condonation of delay and no interference therein is called for, and hence, urged that present petition be dismissed. 8] I have perused the present petition, its annexures and rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and at the out set, it appears that the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharur on 2.12.2010, and thereafter the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision Application along with the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 3.9.2011. 9] Undisputably, the limitation period prescribed for filing the said application under 131 of the Limitation Act is 90 days from the date of the order which is sought to be revived. 9] Undisputably, the limitation period prescribed for filing the said application under 131 of the Limitation Act is 90 days from the date of the order which is sought to be revived. According to the petitioner, she got the knowledge of the order on 29.7.2011, and therefore, she applied for the certified copies thereof which were received by her on 1.8.2011. 10] Hence, considering the said dates, it is apparent that the delay caused in filing Criminal Revision Application along with delay condonation application is more than 6 months excluding the period of limitation and the period consumed for obtaining the certified copies. 11] In the said context, sight cannot be lost of the fact that the petitioner is a rustic villager and as per the averments made in the present petition for condonation of delay, she is the sugarcane harvesting labourer and she had gone for that purpose in November, 2010 and returned in May, 2011. Moreover, although she has not produced the medical certificate, the averment made by the petitioner on oath that she was suffering from jaundice cannot be ignored. Moreover, the petitioner is a woman and admittedly her daughter, namely Jayshree has lost her life and plight of the petitioner and her mental condition also cannot be overlooked. Hence, liberal view is required to be adopted and delay caused in filing the Revision Application deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice by quashing the order, dated 6.2.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon, and opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner to prosecute her Criminal Revision Application on its own merits, but simultaneously, reasonable cost is required to be awarded to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 while passing such order and allowing the present petition. 12] In the result, present petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses ‘B’ and ‘C’ thereof and the order, dated 6.2.2012, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Majalgaon in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12 of 2011 stands quashed and set aside, and the said application is granted subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-by the petitioner to the respondent nos. 2 to 6 within the period of four weeks from the date of this order. 13] Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms. 2 to 6 within the period of four weeks from the date of this order. 13] Rule is made absolute in the afore said terms. 14] It is made clear that the above observations are prima facie in nature and shall be restricted to this order only and shall not be used in any other matter while deciding it on merits.