Revision against Family Court order dismissing a wife's Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition was dismissed for non-prosecution after repeated adjournments and absence; an application to condone a 211-day delay in filing was also dismissed.
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.
CRR(F)1079-2023 (O&M) - 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
109
CRR(F)-1079-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
Narinder Kaur
.… Petitioner
Versus
Gurmit Singh
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-31026-2023
This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 211 days in filing the present revision.
No ground to condone the delay in filing the present revision
is made out.
Present application stands dismissed.
CRR(F)-1079-2023 (O&M)
Challenge in the present revision is to impugned order dated 26.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, Camp Court, Payal, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has been dismissed.
DIVYANSHI 2024.09.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRR(F)1079-2023 (O&M) - 2 -
Perusal of the order sheets shows that the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner on 11.08.2023, 20.02.2024 and 26.04.2024. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the last 2 dates i.e. 28.07.2023 and 22.05.2024. Today also, request for an adjournment has been made. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the petitioner or her counsel is not interested in pursuing the present revision.
In view of the above, the present revision stands dismissed.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
05.09.2024
Divyanshi
( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI 2024.09.10 09:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Should the 211-day delay in filing the revision be condoned?
Was the petitioner entitled to pursue the revision challenging dismissal of her Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Narinder Kaur
Gurmit Singh
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
