17 days’ delay in filing revision against an interim order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara is sought to be condoned. Revision is not seen brought against the maintenance order passed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or even any order passed under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that the interim order of maintenance passed by the trial court was also not challenged. The petitioner herein made an application for modification of the interim order. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court. It is against the said order, this revision is brought. Much enquiry or though is not required to find that such a revision cannot be brought under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act. Any way the affidavit produced along with this application is that of one Ummelu Ummal who claims to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioner herein. A perusal of the proceedings will show that such a power of attorney holder figures for the first time in this matter. The petitioner contested the matter on his own without any power of attorney, and the petition for modification was also filed by him directly in the trial court. There is nothing to show that he had, at any time, executed any power of attorney. In such a situation, affidavit of such a person cannot be accepted by the court in the matter of condonation of delay. In fact, the affidavit does not contain any satisfactory explanation for the delay of 17 days. When the petitioner has not produced such a power of attorney, the petitioner himself has to explain the delay. In the absence of any satisfactory and acceptable explanation for the delay, I am not inclined to condone the delay in the circumstances discussed above. In the result, this petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed as time barred.
Sd/-
P. UBAID (JUDGE) // True Copy //
P.A. To Judge DSV/04/06