Active mediation efforts constitute a valid ground for condoning delay in filing a revisional application.

The petitioner-wife moved a revisional application against an order dated February 18, 2025, passed by the Family Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which granted ad interim maintenance of ₹6,000 for herself and ₹2,000 for her minor daughter under Section 125 CrPC

A delay occurred in filing the revision, which the petitioner attributed to ongoing mediation efforts between February and August 2025

The petitioner argued that the daughter's maintenance was insufficient given her medical condition (Bilateral Tonsillitis) and school expenses

The respondent-husband opposed the wife's entitlement under Section 125(4) CrPC, alleging she left without cause, but expressed willingness to increase the child's support

1. Whether the delay in filing the revisional application should be condoned due to the parties engaging in mediation

2. Whether the ad interim maintenance amount awarded to the minor daughter was sufficient given her educational and medical needs

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that alternative dispute resolution like mediation is encouraged in matrimonial disputes

Substantively, the court looked to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which governs maintenance for wives and children

It specifically noted that Section 125(4) CrPC—which disentitles a wife from maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason—does not strictly apply to the maintenance claims of a minor child

The court first addressed the procedural delay, ruling that because mediation was referred to on August 4, 2025, with both parties present, it could be presumed that the "build-up" to this effort accounted for the prior months of inactivity; thus, a lenient approach was justified

Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the court analyzed the daughter's changing circumstances. While the petitioner claimed high private school fees, the respondent proved the child had been moved to a government school where expenses are minimal

However, the court balanced this against the respondent's voluntary offer, made during the hearing, to increase the child’s support to ₹8,000

The court accepted this as a fair ad hoc arrangement to meet the child's requirements without needing to modify the wife’s separate maintenance of ₹6,000, which remained unchallenged by either party

The respondent-husband was directed to pay a total of ₹14,000 per month (₹6,000 for the wife and an increased ₹8,000 for the daughter) effective May 2026. Arrears from the date of the original application are to be paid in six equal monthly installments

The court clarified that these are ad hoc arrangements subject to the final outcome of the Section 125 CrPC proceedings