RAMSAJIVAN SAHU Vs. PHOOLKUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on IA No. 9342/2011, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) AS per the office report, there is a delay of 126 days in filing the present revision.

(3.) IF the merit of the revision is considered, then the applicant moved an application under Section 125(5) of Cr.P.C. that the respondent was living in adultery, therefore the original maintenance order be quashed. However, it is admitted that the respondent was not divorced wife of the applicant, and therefore the maintenance order could be cancelled if second marriage of the respondent takes place. However, if the respondent is living adultery, still the applicant is responsible to pay maintenance. Consequently, there is no merit in the case. Under such circumstances, where there is no acceptable ground for condonation of delay in filing the present revision, IA No. 9342/11 is hereby dismissed.