Dismissed

Santosh Sao v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2020Cr.Rev./1408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging a maintenance enhancement order. The court refused to condone the 31-day delay as the application lacked foundational facts and the petitioner failed to appear at interim hearings.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Criminal Revision petition dismissed.

Santosh Sao Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Revision No. 1408 of 2016

¶2

Santosh Sao, son of late Gyan Chand Sao, R/o at Katrash Railway Colony, PO&PS-Katrash, District-Dhanbad ... ... Petitioner Versus

¶3

The State of Jharkhand

¶4

Sunita Devi, W/o- Santosh Sao, R/o at Dugda Bati, PO-Karmatand, PS-Dugda, District-Dhanbad ... ... Opposite Parties

¶5

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

¶7

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Pd. Joshi, Advocate For the State : APP

¶8

¶9

06/22.01.2020 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.06.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 03 of 2014 by which the amount of maintenance has been enhanced from Rs. 3,000/- per month to Rs. 8,000/- per month in an application filed by his wife under section 127 Cr.P.C.

¶10

This petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is delay of 31 days in filing this criminal revision petition seeking condonation for which the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 7148 of 2016.

¶12

In the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has stated that he is an employee under Railways and he is very busy with his service and, therefore, he could not contact his counsel.

¶13

This application is bereft of the foundational facts. The petitioner who has taken a plea that he was busy with his work has not even cared to disclose on which post he is working. In fact he is working at a nearby place, that is, Dhanbad.

¶14

This criminal revision petition was filed on 20.10.2016 and thereafter it was listed on 11.11.2016 before the learned Joint Registrar (Judl.) and on 14.12.2016 before the learned Registrar General, but no one has appeared for the petitioner on those dates.

¶15

Besides the aforesaid laches, it needs to be recorded that this criminal revision petition was filed with several defects and by the time it was listed before the Court on 15.05.2017 the defects were

¶16

-2-

¶17

not removed by the petitioner and, accordingly, further time was granted to the petitioner to remove the defects.

¶18

In every case it is not the length of delay which is a deciding factor rather the stake of the parties and loss suffered by a party are the factors which have to be kept in mind while deciding an application for condonation of delay. The marriage between the parties is admitted and the order dated 14.06.2016 reflects that the petitioner was drawing salary of Rs. 53,000/- per month.

¶19

Having considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to condone the delay of 31 days in filing this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, I.A. No. 7148 of 2016 is dismissed. 10. Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 1408 of 2016 is dismissed.

¶20

Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.

¶21

Tanuj/-

¶22

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

Santosh Sao v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Sao v. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash Singhania Vs Smt Sudha Singhania

Nazim Akhtar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Tulsi Mahto Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Rajni Pradhan Alias Rajni Devi Pradhan Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Santosh Kumar Sah Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.

Shyam Kumar Nonia Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Anr.