Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Malanbee Mohammed Sharif Khan, filed a delay condonation application seeking to condone a 133-day delay in challenging an order dated 22.6.2004 passed by the Family Court. The Family Court had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 800 per month each to the respondent-wife and her minor son, totaling Rs. 1600 per month, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, from the date of filing the petition (2.12.2002). The applicant contended that the delay was due to financial constraints and other reasons. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The court observed that the explanation was not satisfactory and dismissed the application, thereby upholding the interim maintenance order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Delay Condonation - Section 125 CrPC - Interim Maintenance - Applicant sought condonation of 133 days delay in challenging Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 800 per month each to wife and minor son - Court found no sufficient cause for delay and dismissed application - Held that delay condonation requires explanation of each day's delay (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 133 days in challenging the interim maintenance order should be condoned.
Final Decision
The delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal revision application also stands dismissed.
Law Points
- Delay condonation
- Interim maintenance
- Section 125 CrPC
- Family Court jurisdiction
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 85
Criminal Application No.704 of 2005 with Cri.Rev.Application No. 29 of 2005
Mr. Harshal Mirashi for applicant, Smt. S.S. Gokhale for respondent no.2
Malanbee Mohammed Sharif Khan
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Delay condonation application in criminal revision against interim maintenance order
Remedy Sought
Condonation of 133 days delay in challenging the order dated 22.6.2004
Filing Reason
Applicant sought to challenge the interim maintenance order passed by Family Court
Previous Decisions
Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 800 per month each to wife and minor son vide order dated 22.6.2004
Issues
Whether the delay of 133 days in filing the revision should be condoned
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that delay was due to financial constraints and other reasons
Respondent opposed the condonation
Ratio Decidendi
Delay condonation requires sufficient cause for each day of delay; failure to provide satisfactory explanation leads to dismissal.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned counsel for both sides.
This is a delay condonation application for condoning delay of 133 days.
The order under challenge is dated 22.6.2004 passed by the Family Court on an Interim Application No.179-2002 in Petition No.E-379-2002, thereby, the interim maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C has been granted to the respondent-wife and her minor son at the rate of Rs.800/- per month to each of them, thus, totalling to Rs.1600/- per month since 2.12.2002,i.e. from the date of filing
Procedural History
Family Court passed interim maintenance order on 22.6.2004. Applicant filed Criminal Application No.704 of 2005 with Cri.Rev.Application No. 29 of 2005 before the High Court with a delay of 133 days. The High Court heard the delay condonation application and dismissed it on 4.4.2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 125
