JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. 2. The applicant is before this Court seeking condonation of delay of 584 days in preferring the accompanying appeal. Notice of the application was ordered to the respondent, but though served, has not chosen to appear and oppose the application. 3. Be that as it may, taking note of the inordinate delay of 584 days in preferring the appeal, we have thought it appropriate to take note as to whether sufficient cause has been made out seeking condonation of delay. 4. A perusal of the application filed seeking condonation of delay would indicate that the reason, as assigned, is that the applicant had filed the petition under No.1036/17 seeking modification of the order dated 30.06.2016 passed in F.C. (Crl.) No.185/12, i.e. the order sought to be impugned in the accompanying appeal. The explanation would disclose that even the petition for modification was filed almost after one-and-half years on 07.12.2017. There is absolutely no explanation in the application with regard to the delay between the period from 30.06.2016 to 07.12.2017. Even, thereafter, the delay caused has not been explained in the application. In that circumstance, we are of the opinion that the inordinate delay is not liable to be condoned. 5. That apart, we have also referred to the appeal papers to take note as to whether any injustice will be caused if the delay is not condoned and the appeal is not taken up for consideration. In that regard, we noticed through the order impugned in the appeal dated 30.06.2016, the Court below had ordered the maintenance of Rs.2,000/-to the wife of the applicant and Rs.1,500/-each to the two minor children. Thus, the maintenance as ordered in all is to the extent of Rs.5,000/-after recording a finding that the appellant/applicant is earning a monthly income of Rs.20,000/-from the grocery shop and he also has landed property. Though we notice that Court below, while arriving at this conclusion, has indicated that there is an obligation to maintain the legally married wife, in fact, the marriage between them has been dissolved by an order dated 30.06.2010. Though we notice that Court below, while arriving at this conclusion, has indicated that there is an obligation to maintain the legally married wife, in fact, the marriage between them has been dissolved by an order dated 30.06.2010. Even if that be the position, since the maintenance as ordered is in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such observation in the present circumstance is immaterial since the maintenance is required to be provided to a person who is unable to maintain and such maintenance would be available to the former wife also. If that be the position, even on merit no prejudice will be caused to the applicant/appellant if the delay is not condoned. 6. The application in I.A. (Civil) No.1387 of 2018 seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. In that view, the instant appeal also stands dismissed.