Petitioners sought condonation of a delay of nearly three years in filing an appeal against a domestic violence maintenance order. The High Court found the reasons unsatisfactory and upheld the trial court's dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.1400 of 2023
... Petitioners
Vs.
S.Sumathi @ Hemalatha
...Respondent
Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order dated 20.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3276 of 2019 in C.A.No.Nil of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran For Respondent : Not Ready in Notice
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order
dated 20.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.3276 of 2019 in C.A.No.Nil of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore.
1/6
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
2/6
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
to pay the maintenance as ordered by the trial Court and could not file an appeal as against the order passed in S.T.C.No.110 of 2014. He further submitted that the first petitioner was retrenched from his service on 31.03.2016. Though valid reasons were given to condone the said delay before the trial Court that the first petitioner is in an indigent position starving for his livelihood along with his mother, the trial Court without considering the same has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that no proper reasons have been given by the first petitioner for the delay of three years which is wholly unsustainable.
his behalf. Considering the period of pendency of this petition, the same is disposed of based on the materials available on record.
materials placed on record.
3/6
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
S.T.C.No.110 of 2014 against the petitioners seeking maintenance and other reliefs before the trial Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 30.08.2016. On a perusal of the order dated 30.08.2016 passed in S.T.C.No.110 of 2014 reveals that, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot has directed the first petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- every year towards educational expenses and other necessities to the respondent and her children which is just and reasonable. Though the first petitioner was taking care of his mother due to her health ailments, however, it is the duty of the husband to also maintain his wife and children. As the reasons stated by the first petitioner to condone the delay of three years for filing appeal against the order dated 30.08.2016 were not satisfactory, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.3276 of 2019 in C.A.No.Nil of 2019 vide order dated 20.10.2022 which is perfectly in order and the same does not warrant any interference.
4/6
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
rap
rap Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No
24.06.2024
To
The Principal District Judge, Vellore.
5/6
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
rap
Crl.RC.No.179 of 2023
24.06.2024
6/6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court rightly refused to condone a 998-day delay in filing an appeal against the maintenance order dated 30.08.2016.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P.Amaresan
P.Parvathi
S.Sumathi @ Hemalatha
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
