Dismissed¶¶26

Sherkhan Najir Khan Pathan and Another v. Minhaj Sherkhan Pathan and Another

Bombay HC17 Jan 2026APPLN/4541/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 2231 days; Criminal Revision Application (St.) No.12613 of 2025; Cri. M.A. No.464/2016; Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed; maintenance order dated 04.05.2019; want of knowledge of proceedings at Beed; day-to-day delay not explained; delay huge; applicant not diligent; application rejected; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Abhay S. Waghwase, J.; pronounced 04.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

There is a delay of 2231 days in questioning the order of the learned trial court dated 04.05.2019 in Cri. M.A. No.464 of 2016. ¶¶21

Sherkhan Najir Khan Pathan and Another vs Minhaj Sherkhan Pathan and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CRI-APPLN-4541-2025

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:4755

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4541 OF 2025 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO.12613 OF 2025

¶7

Sherkhan S/o. Najir Khan Pathan, Age : 25 years, Occu. : Labour, R/o. Tirthapuri, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna. … Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Minhaj W/o. Sherkhan Pathan, Age : 23 years, Occu. : Housewife, R/o. Tirthapuri, Tq. Ghansavangi, Dist. Jalna, Present Address - Kamkheda, Tq. & Dist. Beed.

¶10

Asim S/o. Sherkhan Pathan … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Mahesh L. Muthal, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Vinod I. Thole, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

¶13

RESERVED ON : 02 FEBRUARY 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 04 FEBRUARY 2026

¶14

ORDER :

¶15

This is an application for condonation of delay of 2231

¶16

days caused in filing the Criminal Revision Application (St.) No.12613 of 2025 against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Beed in Cri. M.A. No.464/2016.

¶17

CRI-APPLN-4541-2025

¶18

-2-

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the applicant and the Respondent no. 1 are legally wedded husband and wife. That, applicant is illiterate and labourer, and resides at Ghansavangi. That, he was not aware of the proceedings instituted at Beed, which is apparently 150 km away. That, only because of want of knowledge, revision could not be filed within a period of limitation. The delay so occurred is unintentional. For all above reasons, he prays to condone the delay.

¶20

Learned counsel for respondent opposed the application on the ground that delay is huge and moreover, it is not explained properly. He pointed out that, delay is runs into six years. That, order of maintenance was passed on 04.05.2019. After considering the matter on merits, maintenance has been awarded. Moreover, the delay being huge and not being properly explained, he opposes the application.

¶21

After considering the above submission, there is delay of 2231 days in questioning the order of learned trial court dated 04.05.2019 in Cri. M.A. No.464 of 2016. Except stating that applicant was not aware of the proceedings instituted at Beed, there is nothing on record to show that the delay was unintentional. Everyday delay has not sufficiently explained and here the delay is

¶22

CRI-APPLN-4541-2025

¶23

-3-

¶24

apparently huge. Therefore, when a party who is not diligent, there is huge delay, for want of proper explanation, the application deserves to be rejected. Hence, the following order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The application is rejected.

¶27

(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)

¶28

Tandale

Sherkhan Najir Khan Pathan and Another v. Minhaj Sherkhan Pathan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherkhan Najir Khan Pathan and Another v. Minhaj Sherkhan Pathan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jivan Vikas Shikshan Sanstha Kakramba through Its President Tanaji Ramchandra Veer vs Ramchandra Changdev Thombare and Another

Madhukar Namdeo Dethe vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Juber Faruk Tamobile vs the State of Maharashtra

Tushar Madhukar Darkunde and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jyoti Co-Operative Credit Society Limited Kopergaron, Ahmednagar through Chandrabhan Motiram Masal vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shri Sai Equipment Pvt. Ltd. through Rajendra Janardhan Patil vs Sunita Satish Sonar Proprietor Shraddha Engineers Company