Amruta Pochana Durgam v. Pochanna Malayya Durgam

Bombay HC12 Jun 2026APPR/83/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:7610. High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench; Criminal Application [APPR] No. 83 of 2025 in Criminal Revision Application [Stamp] No. 2657 of 2025; decided 12 June 2026 by M.M. Nerlikar, J. Amruta Pochana Durgam (applicant, through P.J. Mehta, Advocate) versus Pochanna Malayya Durgam (non-applicant, served, none present). 183-day delay in filing revision application against judgment/order dated 14/02/2024 condoned for sufficient cause (delayed certified copy; applicant's ill health and bed rest); application allowed; revision to be registered and listed 30/06/2026. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 183 days in filing the Criminal Revision Application condoned; Criminal Revision Application to be registered and listed on 30/06/2026. ¶para 6

Amruta Pochana Durgam vs Pochanna Malayya Durgam — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:7610

¶2

¶3

48-Cr.APPR-83-2025

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION [APPR] NO. 83 OF 2025 IN

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION [STAMP] NO. 2657 OF 2025

¶7

Amruta Pochana Durgam

¶8

-- VERSUS --

¶9

Pochanna Malayya Durgam

¶10

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,__________________________________________________________________________ appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶11

Mr. P.J. Mehta, Advocate for the Applicant. None present for the Non-applicant.

¶12

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J. DATE : JUNE 12, 2026.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶14

applicant.

¶15

Though the Non-applicant-husband is served, however, none appears for the non-applicant.

¶16

The present application is filed for condonation of delay of 183 days. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that, he has given his reasons in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the application. He submits that, there is no deliberate or intentional act, and therefore, he submits that, the delay has occurred due to circumstances as was stated in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4.

Piyush Mahajan

48-Cr.APPR-83-2025

I have gone through the reasons. It would be useful to reproduce paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4, which reads thus:-

¶21

“ 2) That, the Applicant applied for the certified copy of the said Judgment and order date 14/02/2024 on 14/10/2024, and the same was received by her on 24/10/2024.

¶22

That, thereafter the Applicant approached their local counsel for appropriate advice, who advised her to file a Revision Application before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The Applicant however, due to ill health could not visit counsel in Nagpur immediately, as she was advised complete bed rest by her doctor for 40-45 days with effect from 01/06/2024.

¶23

That, the Applicant visited the office of counsel at Nagpur on 25/07/2024. Thereafter, the counsel prepared the Revision Application, and the same is filed on /08/2024, causing a delay of 183 days in filing the same. ”

¶24

Considering the above explanation and reasons, I find that, sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant to condone the delay of 183 days. Hence, the following order:-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

(i) The Criminal Application [APPR] No.83/2025 is allowed;

¶27

(ii) The delay of 183 days caused in filing the revision application is hereby condoned;

Piyush Mahajan

48-Cr.APPR-83-2025