The High Court dismissed an application for condonation of a 136-day delay in filing a criminal revision against a Family Court order granting maintenance, finding the explanation of ill health and lack of funds insufficient.
The application for condonation of delay (I.A.No.1 of 2018) and the Criminal Revision Case were 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.
!N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
l.A.No.l OF 2018 IN/AND
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO 1191 0F 2018
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C against the Order dated 08-08-2017 passed in M.C.No.200 of 2O13 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.
Between:
S.Sainath, S/o. N. Nagaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Unemployed, r/o H.No.51 9, Sadar Bazar, Bolaram, Secunderabad.
...RESPONDENT/REVISION PETITIONER
AND
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS
...THIRD PARVRESPONDENT
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2018
Between:
S.Sainath, S/o. N. Nagaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Unemployed, r/o H.No.S19, Sadar Bazar, Bolaram, Secunderabad.
... PETITIONER /REVISION PETITIONER
I I l l j l l
AND
... RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS
Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit nfeA in iupport of the petition, the H.igh Court_may be pteased to -cq1!one th" ;"-try;i reo orv.-ir-nrir6 iiil above Crt.R.C.SR.No. 8299 q! 2018 against t-hl impugneO order dated 8-8-2018 passed in M.C.No.200 ot 2ois "" it" hr. ,ii r"irr"J trig""] Family Court, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagir.- -
l.A. NO:2 oF 2018
Petition under Section 492 of Cr.p.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit firea h support of the petition, the Iigl99_rrtmaybe pteased.to^:!ay lheoperation-Jt impugned order dared 8-8-201 I passed in M.c.No.200 tr zorT on lt J'nr"' oi i.r.""J Lrig", F3rilyj.olrt Rangareddy District at f_.e.fVigar pending disposat of the above Crl.R.C.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri SANDEEP KUMAR BODLA
Counsel for Respondents No.1 & 2 : Sri K. KARANDAS
Counsel for Respondent No.3 : pUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the foltowing: ORDER
/
I l
THE HONOI'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
I.A.No.1 OF 2Ol8 In And CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1191 OF 2O1E
ORDER:
2
reason to condone the delay of 136 days in ftlingthe
revision and accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2Ol9 isdismissed.
any, shall stald closed
Sd/-T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
vtr
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Njb
e.q.
HIGH COURT
DATED:2010612023
ORDER
l.A.No.l of 2018 IN/AND GRLRC.No.I19l of 2018
.a=:-=-_
n;^L STAIE C ..<br>r)'
o
12 [ti M.<br>L:
i:i-.-,-__.:;' . :' '
DlSMISSING THE I.A.
AND CRLRC.
e^c., ?s\q(2-3'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a bald statement of ill health and want of funds is sufficient to condone a 136-day delay in filing a criminal revision.
Whether the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable in a criminal revision.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Sainath
S.Sandhya Rani
Master S.Laxminath
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
