Dismissed

Ajit Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022CRLRD/450/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court rejected the revisionist's application for condonation of delay in filing a revision under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The court held that the applicant cannot claim financial crisis or pandemic as a valid excuse after discharging owed maintenance dues, dismissing the time-barred revision.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay rejected; revision petition dismissed as time-barred.

Ajit Kumar Vs State of Up and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 450 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Ajit Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2021

¶6

This revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2019 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Case No. 154 of 2013 (Smt. Daya Vs. Ajit Kumar), under Section- 127 of Ce.P.C., Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr, whereby the maintenance amount has been increased.

¶7

This revision against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2019 has been filed on 23.2.2021 along with the application condonation of delay.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist- applicant and learned AGA for the State on the application for delay condonation. It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist- applicant that due to bad financial condition and some family problems, the revisionist- applicant could not file the revision earlier, and thereafter the Covid-19 situation arose.

¶9

It is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned order was passed on 6.2.2019 by the Principal Judge Family Court, Bulandshahr, in Case No. 154 of 2013 (Smt. Daya Vs. Ajit Kumar), under Section- 127 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Narsena, District Bulandshahr, and thereafter the revisionistapplicant managed all the papers and money for filing the present revision, which took a long time. Thereafter in February, 2020, he engaged a lawyer for filing the present revision and thereafter Holi holidays began and counsel could not file the present revision within time. Just after Holi festival, Covid-19 pandemic started and nationwide lockdown was imposed in the country and when the condition became normal, the counsel for the applicant came back to his office, but the file of the revisionist- applicant was misplaced from his office and he forget to file the case. When revisionist contacted his counsel, only then this revision could be filed. So the delay is

¶10

not deliberate and the prayer to condonation of delay is made.

¶11

Learned AGA has contended that the impugned order dated 17.12.2019, is appended at page No. 40 of the paper book, wherein, the total amount of arrears of Rs. 10,800/-, has been deposited by the revisionist- applicant and thereafter as per the order of Principal Judge Family Court, Bulandshahr, no dues remained on the revisionist- applicant with regard to maintenance to opposite party No.2, which shows that there was no financial crisis with the revisionist- applicant and otherwise also the reason for condonation of delay cannot be said to be sufficient.

¶12

As per the facts by the impugned order dated 6.12.2019, the original order of maintenance dated 21.7.1999 was modified and the amount of maintenance was enhanced after twenty years of the passing of original order. The order dated 17.12.2019 shows that no arrears remained due towards revisionist-applicant on 17.12.2019, which shows firstly that the applicant was in position to pay the due amount of maintenance, secondly the impugned order dated 6.2.2019 has been executed and once the order has been executed no ground for its setting aside arises.

¶13

In view of the above and in the light of order dated 17.12.2019, as the whole dues are made clear by the revisionist-applicant, so it cannot be said that there was any financial crisis with the revisionist-applicant. So far as the family problem is concerned, no family problem has been disclosed in the application or the affidavit and as the subsequent ground of covid-19 is concerned, certainly the lockdown due to Covid-19 started from 22.3.2020. Till 23.2.2021, when the application has been allowed on 6.2.2019 almost two years have been passed and during these two years it cannot be said that the courts were not working neither it can be said that the whole life of revisionistapplicant was stand still by the situation of Covid-19.

¶14

This delay cannot said to be condoned by suo moto Writ No. 3/2020.

¶15

In my opinion the ground shown by the revisionist- applicant is not sufficient. The ground of delay of 660 days cannot be said to be successfully explained.

¶16

Accordingly, the application is devoid of merit, hence, the same is rejected. Consequently, the revision being time barred is also dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.3.2022

¶18

S.K.

¶19

Digitally signed by SWEETY KANOJIA Date: 2022.03.05 13:18:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajit Kumar v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar v. State of Up and Another

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

Vikrant Nehra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sudhir Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Shanker Awasthi Vs State of U P

Braham Kant Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sarukh Vs State of U.P.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.