Smt. Monikamoyee Das @ Monika Das vs Rajdeep Karmakar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2939 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010064522021




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Crl.)/205/2021

             SMT. MONIKAMOYEE DAS @ MONIKA DAS
             D/O LATE SUCHAN DAS, W/O SRI RAJDEEP KARMAKAR, R/O
             MAGURPARA, P.O.-JHAROBARI, P.S.-PALASHBARI, DIST-KAMRUP, ASSAM

             VERSUS

             RAJDEEP KARMAKAR
             S/O SRI BIRAJ KARMAKAR, R/O SASTRI NAGAR (BALADMARI), P.O. AND
             P.S.-GOALPARA, DIST-GOALPARA, ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS M D CHOWDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MR H DAS


                                     BEFORE
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

                                          ORDER

Date : 17.11.2021

Heard Ms. M. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant.

None has appeared for the respondent, though the name of Mr. H. Das and Mr. R. Boruah, learned counsels representing the sole respondent have been shown in the Cause list.

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 450 days in filing the connected revision Page No.# 2/2

petition, which revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2018, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in F.C.(Crl.) No.125/2016, whereby maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six thousand only) was directed to be paid to the present applicant by the opposite party.

The reason for delay of 450 days in filing the connected revision petition has been stated to be on account of non-receipt of copy of the judgment passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati as the applicant states to be a layman not knowing about the requirement of copy of the judgment in filing the revision petition.

Though, the explanation provided by the applicant appears to be not a satisfactory one requiring condonation of delay of 450 days in filing the revision petition, yet, considering the averment made by the applicant in the instant application that the opposite party has been irregular in paying the monthly maintenance amount, as directed, I am inclined to allow this application in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the delay of 450 days in filing the revision petition is hereby condoned.

The IA stands allowed and disposed of.

The connected revision petition shall now be registered and list it for Admission hearing after 2(two) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant