Unsubstantiated illness and prolonged inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay.

The petitioner had initially appeared in Maintenance Case No. 176 of 2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Samastipur, on 20 October 2016. Thereafter, he remained absent and failed to file his show-cause despite sufficient opportunity; the proceedings were consequently taken up ex parte on 12 May 2017, and the maintenance order was passed on 12 February 2019.

The petitioner claimed that he had suffered from heart-related medical problems, was unaware of the maintenance judgment, and came to know of it only after proceedings in Execution Case No. 35 of 2019, particularly communications dated 20 and 28 July 2025 directing him to deposit Rs. 16,05,000.

He filed the present criminal revision with an application seeking condonation of a stated delay of 233 days, although the application incorrectly mentioned the delay as 2,356 days.

Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient and credible cause for condonation of the delay in filing the criminal revision against the maintenance order.

Whether, upon dismissal of the delay-condonation application, the criminal revision was liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.

The Court applied the principle that delay in filing a statutory proceeding may be condoned only where the applicant establishes a sufficient, bona fide, and credible explanation for the entire period of delay; a vague or unsupported assertion of illness, without documentary proof, does not constitute sufficient cause.

The Court further applied the rule that where an application for condonation of delay is rejected, the underlying revision remains barred by limitation and cannot be examined on merits.

The Court found that the petitioner’s explanation was not credible. Although he asserted that illness prevented his appearance, he produced no medical document showing that he was incapacitated from the date of his absence until the ex parte order was passed.

The Court also considered it significant that the petitioner had appeared in the maintenance proceedings in 2016 but made no effort to ascertain the case’s status even after his alleged recovery. His failure to participate in proceedings concerning his wife and minor son further undermined the bona fides of his explanation. Accordingly, the Court held that the stated reason was merely a ruse and did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 1122 of 2025 was held to be hopelessly barred by limitation and was dismissed without consideration on merits.