The High Court dismissed a revision and rejected the accompanying condonation of delay application for Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings due to lack of evidence supporting the plea of legal impossibility and the fact that the revisionist failed to disclose her mother had already received compromise funds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45474
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 450 of 2021
Revisionist :- Sumaila Khatun Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
(C.M.Application No. 86228 of 2021: Application for condonation of delay)
The present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984 read with Section 397/401 Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1 Gonda in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2000067/2013 under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Sumaila Khatun Vs. Mohd. Hasim) along with an application for condonation of delay.
It is mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application that the revisionist is very poor unmarried girl and the mother of revisionist was seriously ill and her medical treatment was continuously going on coupled with the fact that second wave of Covid-19 also started in the month of March, 2021 therefore she could not contact with her counsel and thus the present revision could not be filed within time.
From the record it transpires that no document has been filed in support of the aforesaid contention.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 submitted that the mother of revisionist had entered into a compromise with the opposite party No. 2 on 20.06.2002 and in terms of the aforesaid compromise the opposite party No.2 has already provided a demand draft to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the
mother of revisionist.
It transpires from the order of learned family court dated 19.02.2021 passed in application 125 Cr.P.C (Criminal misc. Case No. 2000067/2013) that the aforesaid application was rejected on the ground that the applicant has not come with clean hand and demand draft was already given to the mother of the revisionist.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the mother of the revisionist had already received demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- and the revisionist has come before this court without disclosing the aforesaid fact couple with the fact that no good ground has been disclosed for the condonation of delay.
The application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
(Criminal Revision)
Since the delay condonation application has been rejected, the revision stands dismissed.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 13.7.2023 Nadeem
Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the application for condonation of delay is maintainable absent documentary evidence of legal impediments.
Whether the revisionist came to court with a clean hand regarding the compromise and prior receipt of funds.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of U.P.
Renu Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
