Bombay High Court
Tararani @ Yogita W/O Naresh Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 19 April, 2023
Bench: S. G. Mehare
1 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.65 OF 2015
Tararani @ Yogita W/o Naresh Koli,
Age 32 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o Plot No.167, Ganesh Colony,
Jalgaon. ... Applicant.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. Naresh S/o Madhukar Koli,
Age 37 years, Occu. Service,
3. Sunita W/o Naresh Koli - Deleted.
4. Madhukar S/o Vana Koli,
Age 65 years, Occu. Pensioner,
5. Sushila W/o Madhukar Koli,
Age 59 years, Occu. Household,
6. Rekha D/o Madhukar Koli,
Age 28 years, Occu. Service.
Res.Nos.2 to 6 R/o Plot No.201,
Building No.5-A,
New Panchdip Society, Manish Nagar,
Kalwa, District Thane.
7. Kalpana @ Sunanda W/o Pandharinath Shirsath,
Age 39 years, Occu. Household.
8. Pandharinath S/o Nathhu Shirsath,
Age 43 years, Occu. Service,
Res.Nos.7 & 8 R/o Pankaj Nagar,
Chopada, District Jalgaon. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patankar Himanshu A.
APP for Respondent No.1-State : Mr. S. P. Sonpawale.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 18:20:56 :::
2 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. D. Ostwal.
Respondent No.3 - Deleted.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 : Mr. Jadhav K. D.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.7 & 8 : Mr. M. R. Bhokarikar.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
RESERVED ON : 15.03.2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.04.2023
JUDGMENT :-
1. The applicant/wife takes exception to the order of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon rejecting the
application for condonation of delay in Cri.M.A.No.30 of 2012,
dated 17.01.2015.
2. The applicant had filed an application under the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalgaon, which was
dismissed on 24.12.2010. The applicant had impugned the said
order along with an application for condonation of 14 months
and a week delay in preferring the appeal before the Sessions
Court.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, did not
satisfy with the reasons for the delay and dismissed the
application.
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 18:20:56 :::
3 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
4. Heard the respective learned counsels at length.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate the fact
that the applicant was unable to approach the Court, and the
reasons were sufficient to condone the delay. A liberal view
ought to have been taken by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge. The husband has been remarried, and respondent No.2
is his second wife. He argued that a liberal has to be taken as
the matter goes to the roots of the right of an abandoned
woman to have maintenance and other reliefs under the
Domestic Violence Act.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Otswal, as usual,
filed a long reply with a chart of dates and twenty case laws
and strongly opposed the application. He would submit that
the reasons for the delay were not sufficient. It was a
deliberate delay. Therefore, the impugned order is legal and
correct.
7. Perused the reply and the case laws. The law on
condonation of delay is well settled. The law does not provide
any enlargement of the limitation period that has been
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 18:20:56 :::
4 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
prescribed. The existence of a sufficient cause is a condition
precedent for the exercise of the discretion by the Court for
condonation of delay. Discretion to condone the delay should
be based not on the length of the delay but on sufficient and
satisfactory explanation. The bald statement with no reasons
for non-intimidation of impugned order is not a considerable
ground. Considering these principles, the Court is of the view
that it would not be appropriate to discuss each and every case
law cited by the respondent. He further argued and pointed
out that another Hindu Marriage Petition between them was
pending in the same Court premises. The applicant used to
attend that petition for collecting the amount as directed by
the Court. In the said petition, on various dates the learned
counsel for the applicant was also present. Therefore, it cannot
be believed that she could not file the appeal in time. The
reasons assigned for the delay were not only insufficient or
inappropriate but far away from the requirement of law under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The sufficient cause was not
pleaded in the application. Therefore, the impugned order is
legal, proper and correct. That apart, her right would not affect
as tried to be argued by the learned counsel for the applicant
for the reasons that she is already getting the maintenance
from respondent No.1. Since she was collecting the amount
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 18:20:56 :::
5 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
deposited by respondent No.1 in the Court, it cannot be
believed that due to financial crisis, she could not file an
appeal in time. The copy of the impugned judgment was
immediately delivered to her on the date of the delivery of the
impugned judgment. Therefore, she did not need to wait till
she got the certified copy. In short, he has argued that the
grounds mentioned in the application were insufficient to
believe that it was beyond her control that she could not prefer
the appeal in time.
8. The applicant did not deny that on the day of delivering
the impugned Judgment, the copy was supplied to her free of
cost. Therefore, it was possible for her to prefer the appeal.
The other reason for the delay, she explained, was that her
father died on 30.01.2011. Hence, she was in grief. Thereafter,
she left her native place for quite some time and was under
financial crisis. Hence, she could not approach the Court in
time. In such a way, there was a delay of 14 months and a
week in preferring the appeal.
9. The documents placed on record by the husband/
respondent No.1 reveal that during the said period, she used to
go to the Court to collect the maintenance amount in another
::: Uploaded on - 19/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2023 18:20:56 :::
6 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
case pending in another Court in the same Court premises.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that she had a financial crisis.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly
observed that she did not assign the reason for her stay out of
the city of Jalgaon. The burden was on her to prove that there
was a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal in time. She
was to explain to the Court satisfactorily that the reasons
assigned by her were reasonable and sufficient.
11. Considering her conduct, supported by the fact that she
was attending another petition between her and her husband
in the same Court premises, it appears that the reasons for the
condonation of delay were not sufficient and reasonable. The
reasons assigned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Jalgaon, appear legally correct and proper. In view of that
matter, the revision application does not survive. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed.
(ii) No order as to costs.
(iii) Rule stand discharged.
7 Cri.Rev.Appln.65-2015.odt
(iv) Record and Proceedings of Criminal M.A. No.30 of
2012 be returned to the learned Adhoc District
Judge-1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
