Deepu @ Dipesh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1187 of 2025

Deepu @ Dipesh

.....Revisionist(s)

Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Saurabh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.	Tripathi

¶5

Court No. - 90

¶6

HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present revision has been field against the order dated 5.9.20218 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahjahanpur in Case No.299 of 2017 (Smt. Sangeeta and others vs. Deepu @ Dipesh, P.S. Kalan, District-Shahjahanpur, by which the Principal Judge, Family Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 as interim maintenance and Rs. 1000/- each to opposite party nos. 3 and 4 respectively from the date of order and order dated 10.4.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, under Section 128 Cr.P.C., whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court quashed the non-bailable warrants issued against the revisionist and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2.

¶9

The instant revision has been filed with the delay of 1682 days.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that due to dispute between husband and wife the revisionist left for Kanpur and that is why he could not appear before the trial court on few dates, as a result thereof Non-bailable warrant has been issued against the revisionist. He next submitted that the revisionist is a poor person and he is having financial constraints. He next submitted that the delay in filing the revision was neither deliberate nor wilful, but due to financial hardship and seeking appropriate legal advice at appropriate time and prayed, that the delay in filing the present revision be condoned.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the delay in filing the revision

¶12

CRLRD No. 1187 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

was deliberate and willful. In support of his contention, A.G.A. has relied upon paragraph nos. 260, 261, 262 and 264 of the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRS vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No. 11794 of 2025, arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10704 of 2019, which reads as under:-

¶15

" 262 The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the High Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a Stateauthority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. The constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favourable orders are frustrated at later stages. We are at pains to reiterate this everlasting trend, and put all the High Courts to notice, not to reopen matters with inordinate delay, until sufficient cause exists, as by doing so the courts only add insult to the injury, more particularly in appeals under Section 100 of the CPC, wherein its jurisdiction is already limited to questions of law.

¶16

263. Limitation periods are prescribed to maintain a sweeping scope for the lis to attain for finality. More than the importance of judicial time, what worries us is the plight of a litigant with limited means, who is to contest against an enormous State, and its elaborate and never-exhausting paraphernalia. Such litigations deserve to be disposed of at the very threshold, because, say if a party litigating against the State, for whatever reason, is unable to contest the condonation of delay in appeal, unlike the present case, it reopens the lis for another round of litigation, and leaves such litigant listless yet again. As courts of conscience, it is our obligation that we assure that a litigant is not sent from pillar to post to seek justice.

¶17

264. No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law."

¶18

Having regard to the fact that there is inordinate delay of 1682 days in filing the revision. The reasons shown in the application are not sufficient. The said delay is inordinate and cannot be condoned as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (supra) .

¶19