Dismissed

Shankar Sikandar Pawar v. Kamal Shankar Pawar and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2013APPLN/541/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an applicant's prayer for condonation of a 865-day delay in filing a criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance. The Court found the reasons for delay vague and insufficient under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for condonation of delay in filing criminal revision was rejected; application dismissed as barred by limitation.

Shankar Sikandar Pawar Vs Kamal Shankar Pawar and Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

cran541.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 541 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 19 OF 2012

¶5

Shankar s/o Sikandar Pawar ...Applicant versus Kamal w/o Shankar Pawar and others ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. S.R. Kedar h/f Mr. D.H. Jadhavar, advocate for the applicant

¶7

CORAM : A. I. S. CHEEMA, J. DATED : 2^nd SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-husband.

¶10

This is an application for condonation of delay of 865 days, in

¶11

filing accompanying criminal revision application. The revision is tendered challenging the judgment and order dated 20.6.2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad in Petition No. E-438 of 2008.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was

¶13

serving as police constable, however, he was suspended and he could

¶14

cran541.12 -2-

¶15

not attend the proceedings in the Family Court, as he was under mental shock and was also facing financial problems. In view of these circumstances, the matter got decided ex-parte and for revision also the delay is caused and it needs to be condoned.

¶16

It seems that the applicant remained absent and ultimately the Family Court allowed the petition for maintenance, filed by the respondents under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By the impugned judgment and order, the wife was granted maintenance of Rs.1500/- p.m. and each of the daughters was granted maintenance of Rs.700/- p.m. from the date of petition. The said order is challenged by the applicant by tendering accompanying criminal revision application.

¶17

This Court has gone through the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in which it is contemplated that, it is necessary for the applicant to satisfy that there is sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or making an application within time specified. The only ground mentioned in para 2 of the application is that, “after filing say, the applicant remained absent in the trial court due to mental shock and financial problem”. That is the sole reason for delay in filing the present proceedings also belatedly.

¶18

cran541.12

¶19

Perusal of the impugned order against which the revision is tendered shows that the wife and children have been granted paltry amount. The applicant did not appear in the Trial court after filing his say. Now he has come up before this Court with the revision delayed by 865 days. The reason given for the delay is vague and if accepted one would be able to go to higher courts even after many years. In the present matter, the applicant has come with revision delayed by more than two years. There are no particulars of alleged mental shock or how there were financial problems. Such vague and unsatisfactory reasons cannot be accepted. The revision application tendered is hopelessly barred by limitation.

¶20

In the result, there is no substance in the application and the same is rejected.

¶21

(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)

¶22

rlj/

Shankar Sikandar Pawar v. Kamal Shankar Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Sikandar Pawar v. Kamal Shankar Pawar 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

Sarvottam Krushnarao Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dashrath Narayan Dhumal Vs Kantilal Pulchand Gandhi (Tamaswadikar) and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Ranjeet Baban Hake

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ashok Maruti Patil (Moghekar) and Ors.