J UDGMENT & O RDER : KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J. Heard Mr. N. Patiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 08.07.2024 in Criminal (L) No. 7/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Nagaon, (hereinafter referred to as the “revisional Court”) whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the Criminal Revision was dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent No. 2 had filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the petitioner in the month of April, 2015 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, which was later on transferred to the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon, (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”) for dismissal. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court, the case was proceeded ex- parte against the petitioner and on 17.09.2016, the learned trial Court was pleased to direct the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,500/- (rupees four thousand) only to the respondent No.2 and Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) only to the minor son of the respondent No.2. Thereafter, the order dated 17.09.2016 could not be executed due to the absence of the petitioner. Situated thus, the respondent No.2 on 06.09.2021 filed a petition before the trial Court for revival of the said case and learned trial Court by order dated 18.09.2021 was pleased to revive the said case and issue notice to the petitioner. It appears that it is the further case of the petitioner that though notice was issued against the petitioner, however, it was not duly served upon him and as such, the petitioner was absent on 21.10.2021 and 22.12.2021. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent No.2 had filed a petition on 22.11.2021 for allowance of issuance of notice upon the petitioner through WhatsApp messenger and the learned trial Court was pleased to allow the same. It appears that on 23.12.2021 a report was received from the Process Server of the trial Court as regards the service of the notice upon the petitioner through WhatsApp messenger and the same was posted on 27.01.2022. It appears that on 23.12.2021 a report was received from the Process Server of the trial Court as regards the service of the notice upon the petitioner through WhatsApp messenger and the same was posted on 27.01.2022. Thereafter, on 27.01.2022 since the petitioner did not appear, the learned trial Court was pleased to issue a Distress Warrant against the petitioner. Thereafter on 24.02.2022, 24.03.2022, 13.05.2022, 27.06.2022 and 28.07.2022 it appears that the Distress Warrants could not be executed against the petitioner. Accordingly, on 28.07.2022 respondent No.2 filed another petition for deducting the monthly allowance from the salary of the petitioner and the learned trial Court by order dated 30.08.2022 was pleased to direct the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner to deduct an amount of Rs. 4,500/- (rupees four thousand five hundred) only for the respondent No.2 and Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand) only for the son of the respondent No.2. 4. Thereafter, on 31.10.2022 the respondent No.2 filed a petition before the learned trial Court stating that as per the order dated 30.08.2022 the respondent No.2 received an amount of Rs. 6,500/- (rupees six thousand five hundred only), however, there is an arrear amount of Rs. 4,61,500/- (rupees four lakh sixty one thousand five hundred) only and accordingly, prayed for issuance of Distress Warrant against the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial Court issued a Bailable Warrant of Arrest (BWA) of Rs. 10,000/- by order dated 09.02.2023 against the petitioner. 5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the petitioner came to know of the deduction of amount of Rs. 6,500/- per month from his salary, he preferred a petition being Criminal (L) Petition No. 07/2023 for condonation of delay for filing a criminal revision before the revisional Court against the order dated 17.09.2016 and subsequent orders passed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the learned revisional Court was pleased to dismiss the petition being Criminal (L) Petition No. 07/2023 for lack of proper explanation. Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed. 6. Mr. N. Patiri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is not the married wife of the petitioner and the minor son, which the respondent No.2 claims to be born out of their wedlock is also not true. Situated thus, the present criminal petition has been filed. 6. Mr. N. Patiri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is not the married wife of the petitioner and the minor son, which the respondent No.2 claims to be born out of their wedlock is also not true. He further submits that the petitioner does not know respondent No.2 and it is only when the salary was deducted from his account, he came to know about the impugned order of maintenance. He accordingly, submits that the order of the revisional Court dismissing the condonation of delay application warrants interference from this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam vehemently opposes the prayer made in the criminal petition and submits that the order of the revisional Court dismissing the condonation of delay application on the ground of lack of proper explanation for delay warrants no interference from this Court. 8. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties, and have also perused the material available on record. 9. Apt to refer to the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 of the revisional Court which reads as hereunder: - “Criminal (L) 7/2023 08.7.24 Both the sides are represented. As I have heard both the sides already by this order this case would culminate. Applicant/revisionist contends that he was the 2nd party and the opposite party (hereinafter as OP) was the 1st party before learned trial Court, in MR Case 51/2015 (u/s 125 CrPC). That, orders dated 31-08-2016, 17-09-2016, 17-11-2016., 22-11-2021, 23-12-2021, 25-01- 2022, 27-01-2022, 27-06-2022, 30-08-2022, 21- 10-2022, 09-02-2023, 27-03-2023, 24-04-2023, 16-05-2023 and ex-parte order dated 17-09-2016, were passed by learned trial Court behind his back. The applicant came to know about the MR Case, when he was posted at Lakhimpur in the month of February 2023, when Superintendent of Police, Lakhimpur, sought from him one photocopy of Voter Identity Card, without explaining the cause. The applicant on 10-03-2023 came to know from a reliable staff of S.P Office that an amount of Rs. 6,500/- is being deducted from his salary every month through Court. At no point of time, second party/applicant was served with any notice in connection with MR Case No. 51/2015. The applicant on 10-03-2023 came to know from a reliable staff of S.P Office that an amount of Rs. 6,500/- is being deducted from his salary every month through Court. At no point of time, second party/applicant was served with any notice in connection with MR Case No. 51/2015. Learned Court did not examine the Process Server, Service Report is neither supported by any affidavit nor is it prepared in presence of two witnesses. As the 2nd party is an ordinary Keypad Mobile user, he was unaware of any deduction from his salary. He came to Nagaon Court, one Counsel procured relevant case record and having viewed certified copies, 2nd party became shocked that a female stranger not connected with his matrimonial/personal life had instituted said MR Case No. 51/2015 against him, claiming herself to be his wife and claiming her son to be his. He came to know that on strength of order dated 17-09-16 in the MR case he has been directed to pay Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance to the 1st party and another amount of Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to her son till his majority. Hence, this prayer to condone the delay in preferring revision challenging legality, propriety aforesaid impugned orders and judgment. Perusal of case record shows that the MR Case No. 51/2015 was decided ex-parte on 17- 09-2016 and the orders and subsequent orders are towards execution of same. Order dated 16-05- 2023 shows issuance of BWA against the 2nd party/revisionist/applicant. On 03-06-2023, this prayer for condonation of delay in preferring revision has been registered at the instance of the2nd party. Article 131 Indian Limitation Act provides for ninety days from the date of decree or order or sentence sought to be revised. Perusal of the Case Record shows that petition 1480/223 registered on 03.6.23 which seeks to condone delay in preferring revision against order dated 17.9.2016. In view of Section 3 Indian Limitation Act it is peremtory and each Court is bound to see whether the claim is barred, but in light whether rider provided u/s 4-24 of the Act comes to recue of the applicant! Section 5 of Limitation Act provides for sufficient cause If the applicant satisfies Court of law that there was genuine reason for not knocking the door of Court within time stipulated by law, Section 5 of the Act comes for rescue. Section 5 of Limitation Act provides for sufficient cause If the applicant satisfies Court of law that there was genuine reason for not knocking the door of Court within time stipulated by law, Section 5 of the Act comes for rescue. Sufficient cause, is an elastic term and depends on facts and circumstance of each and every case. In this case, applicant(revisionist) These being the reasons, to condone his delay in preferring the Revision; when this Court scrutinized the case Record including that of the Hon’ble Trial Court, it appears that order passed by learned Trial Court on 30.8.22, deducting the monthly maintenance ordered and Issued notice to D.D.O of the 2nd party (revisionist/applicant). This Court is not convinced with the reason that the applicant was not aware of monthly deduction from his Account, that too when the sum is Rs 6,500/-, which is not a meagre ammount. At this juncture, that, vide para no.10 of the application the revisionist denied marriage with the Opposite party(1 st party in The MR case) and also disowns that he is the father of the son, to whom maintenance allowed by the learned lower Court. Learned Counsel R. Ullah submitted, during hearing, a print out of Crl Pet 272/24, u/s 482 CrPC drawing attention of this Court that, that the revisionist already paid Rs 50,000/- out of the arrear amount of Rs. 4,24,000/- and Hon’ble High Court directed him to pay the balance amount within one year in equal instalment and also recalled the orders issuing NBWA when the 2nd party showed his readiness and willingness to pay the arrear maintenance before Hon’ble High Court. It appears that by agitating facts in his favour, that the 1st party and the son is a stranger to him; as if he is trying to impress that sufficient cause exists in his prayer to condone the delay. But merits of claim and denial not to be looked upon at this stage. This being a prayer for condonation of delay, this Court is concerned with "sufficient Cause" only. But lack of bona fide on part of the applicant/Revisionist surfaces from the materials placed before this Court. apparently, the applicant chose not to plead the date, when he came to know about pendency of The MR51/15. This is very crucial because negligence, inaction cannot be condoned. Condoning delay Is not a grace. But lack of bona fide on part of the applicant/Revisionist surfaces from the materials placed before this Court. apparently, the applicant chose not to plead the date, when he came to know about pendency of The MR51/15. This is very crucial because negligence, inaction cannot be condoned. Condoning delay Is not a grace. This Court is not oblivious that a liberal approach, a pedantic approach is required but that should be, in a fit case. When the applicant chooses not to place in record the very fact, when he came to know, in the facts and circumstances, it appears as if he is trying to defeat the order of payment of maintenance to the 1st party and the son, in subversion of justice. It is not the period of delay, but the cause shown, which is germane to this Court but taking into consideration, above discussion, this Court is not convinced. Considering all aspects, I am not convinced as to presence of sufficient cause, in petitioner’s case. The prayer lacks merit and hence, stands rejected. This case stands disposed off.” 10. Perusal of the aforesaid order, it is apparent that no sufficient explanation was given in the delay application for the delay that has occurred in filing the revision petition. Hence, the order of the revisional Court dismissing the delay condonation application is justified. That apart, it appears that against the order of the learned trial Court whereby Warrant of Arrest was issued against the petitioner was challenged before this Court in Criminal petition No. 272/2024, wherein the petitioner had assured this Court that he is ready and willing to pay the balance arrear maintenance amount to the respondent No.2 in installment basis. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment & order dated 21.05.2024 of this Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: - “3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment & order dated 21.05.2024 of this Court is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: - “3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Boruah that in pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 17.09.2016 passed in M. R. Case No.51/2015, the petitioner is paying Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred) only as maintenance allowance to the respondent No.2 as directed by the learned Trial Court, though some arrear maintenance is yet to be paid to the said respondent No.2 till date and since the month of December, 2023, the monthly maintenance of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Six thousand five hundred) only has been directly transferred to the account of the respondent No.2 from the salary account of the accused/petitioner. But, due non-payment of arrear maintenance of Rs.4,55,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty-five thousand) only, the Id. SDJM, Nagaon, issued Distress Warrant (DW) against the accused/petitioner and on non-execution of DW, the learned Trial Court issued BWA against the accused/petitioner. The learned Trial Court issued the BWA on 09.02.2023 fring next date as 09.03.2023 and then on the subsequent dates also the Id. SDJM, Nagaon reissued the BWA against the present petitioner. Thereafter, it has been observed by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner neither appeared nor deposited the amount towards the maintenance and accordingly, vide order dated 14.07.2023, the said Court issued the Warrant of Arrest fixing the date 24.08.2023 and on subsequent dates also the NBWA was issued against him by the Trial Court. 4. He further submitted that the petitioner is regularly paying his monthly maintenance as per the order of the Id. SDJM, Nagaon, although, there are some arrear prior to December, 2023. However, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the arrear maintenance to the respondent No.2 in installment basis, but because of issuance of Warrant of Arrest, the petitioner is under apprehension of arrest and hence, he could not appear before the learned Trial Court for the payment of the remaining arrear maintenance allowance. Accordingly, prayer was made for recalling of the NBWA issued against the accused/petitioner giving him an opportunity to appear before the learned Trial Court to make the payment in installment basis. 5. Accordingly, prayer was made for recalling of the NBWA issued against the accused/petitioner giving him an opportunity to appear before the learned Trial Court to make the payment in installment basis. 5. He further submitted that vide order dated 12.03.2024, this Court asked the present petitioner for payment of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only towards the arrear maintenance amount and complying the said order he already paid the Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only towards the maintenance arrear and the warrant issued against him has been recalled by the learned Trial Court. Further, the accused/petitioner is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of arrear in installment basis. 6. In this regard, Mr. Nawaz, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only has already been received towards the arrear amount, however, the total arrear amount due is Rs. 4,74,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy-four thousand) only and out of which Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only has already been paid in pursuant to this Court order dated 12.03.2024 and there is still balance amount of Rs. 4,24,000/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty-four thousand) only towards the arrear maintenance. He also submitted that he has no objection in disposing of the present criminal petition; however, a necessary direction may be given to the petitioner for payment of the balance arrear amount in installment basis within a stipulated period of time. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, and upon perusal of the case record, it is seen that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) only towards to the maintenance allowance and on the basis of which the Warrant of Arrest was recalled. More so, the petitioner is also ready and willing to pay the balance arrear amount in installment basis to the respondent No.2. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 14.07.2023 and other subsequent Orders dated 24.08.2023, 29.09.2023, 04.11.2023, 28.12.2023 and 01.02.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam in M.R. Case No.51/2015, stands set aside and quashed with a further direction to the petitioner to pay the remaining balance arrear amount in equal installment basis to the respondent No.2 within 1(one) year and accordingly, the learned Trial Court shall calculate the exact arrear amount and shall fixed the monthly installment amount to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.2. Further the NBWA issued against the present accused/petitioner, if any stands suspended.” 11. Reading of the aforesaid decision, it is apparent that this Court had set aside the Warrant of Arrest issued by the learned trial Court on the basis of the assurance made by the petitioner that he is ready and willing to pay the balance arrear maintenance amount in installment basis to the respondent No.2. It is also apparent that out of the total arrear amount of Rs. 4,74,000/- (rupees four lakh seventy four thousand) only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) has already been paid in terms of this Court’s order dated 12.03.2024 during the pendency of the said criminal petition and there was a balance of Rs. 4,24,000/- (four lakh twenty four thousand) only which the petitioner assured before this Court in Criminal Petition No. 272/2024, that the same shall be paid in installment basis. Contrary to the above, it is the specific stand of the petitioner in this proceeding that he neither knows the respondent No.2 nor is married to her. 12. It thus appears that the petitioner is taking contrary stand before this Court to mislead the Court to pass orders in his favour. As such, it is abundantly clear that the instant petition is nothing but an abuse of Court process. 13. In view of the above, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the revisional Court in Criminal (L) No. 07/2023 and as such, the petition fails. 14. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed and is disposed of. No order as to costs.