Dismissed

Indra Nath Gupta v. Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors.

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022CRLRD/375/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision application challenging a family court maintenance order, the High Court rejected the condonation of a six-month delay filed by the appellant citing heart disease. The Court found the evidence lacking, noted the existence of an alternative remedy, dismissed the revision, and ordered the return of the file.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay was rejected and the criminal revision was dismissed.

Indra Nath Gupta Vs Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 31

¶2

(C.M. Application No. 103785 of 2010)

¶3

In re:

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 375 of 2010

¶5

Revisionist :- Indra Nath Gupta Opposite Party :- Smt. Urmila Devi And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- N.K. Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Perusal of the record shows that notices have been served upon the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 on 08.05.2013, but not has put in appearance on their behalf.

¶9

The instant application has been moved under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in preferring the criminal revision against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2009 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad in Case No. 92 of 1994 (Smt. Urmila Devi vs. Indra Nath Gupta), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the application for maintenance of opposite party no.1 was partly allowed and the present revisionist was directed to pay Rs.300/- per month to his daughter Km Reeta @ Durgesh Nandini from 15.06.1994 to 31.12.2008.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has obtained the certified copy of the impugned order on 15.12.2009 and started preparation for filing revision before this Court but suddenly he in the month of March, 2010 he felt severe heart pains, therefore, he first consulted the doctors who found that the deponent is suffering from heart disease and was advised to take more bed rest. The deponent had also spent much more money in his treatment and he was not financially and physically able to engage counsel on his behalf for filing revision before this Court and later on the instant revision is filed on 05.10.2010 with a delay of about six months and nineteen days. For the aforesaid reasons, the delay in filing the instant revision has caused which is not deliberate and the same is liable to be condoned.

¶11

During arguments it has been submitted that Km Reeta @ Durgesh Nandini has been married to someone.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for condonation of delay.

¶13

I have gone through the file. The revisionist has stated that he was advised for more bed rest when he had gone to doctor for treatment. This word 'more' suggests that the revisionist was on bed rest previous to visit to doctor, but he has not disclosed the name of the doctor on whose advise he was on bed rest. Therefore, it appears that the instant application has been filed with ulterior motive.

¶14

The ground shown for delay in filing the instant revision is not sufficient and the delay is not liable to be condoned. Moreover, the revisionist has an alternative remedy to move an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. before the lower court for discharge of maintenance.

¶15

In view of above, the delay condonation application is hereby, rejected. Consequently, the instant revision also stands dismissed .

¶16

Let the lower Court record, if any, be transmitted back to Court below, along with a copy of this order.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 Vikas/-

¶18

Digitally signed by VIKAS VERMA Date: 2022.12.01 18:23:01 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Indra Nath Gupta v. Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra Nath Gupta v. Smt. Urmila Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Bhawan Singh Vs Amrendra Bahadur Singh and Another

Akram Vs the State of U.P.

Smt. Ram Shree Vs Addl. Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another

Ram Raj Vs State of U.P.and 3 Ors.

Ram Laut and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.