Gujarat High Court
Hinaben Jigneshbhai Patel vs Jigneshbhai Jamiyatbhai Patel on 5 December, 2023
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16874/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
16874 of 2023
In
F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28555 of 2023
================================================================
HINABEN JIGNESHBHAI PATEL
Versus
JIGNESHBHAI JAMIYATBHAI PATEL
==============================================================================
Appearance:
MS E.SHAILAJA(2671) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MUHAMMADYUSUF M KHARADI(9509) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK MEHTA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Date : 05/12/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. This application for condoning the delay of 272 days in
preferring the Revision Application against the judgment and
order dated 08.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2017 by
the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Bardoli. The basic
litigation is pertaining to the provisions of Domestic Violence
Case where the applicant-wife had claimed compensation under
the provisions of Domestic Violation case against the
respondent-husband for the applicant and two minor children.
2. It appears that the trial Court did allow the compensation
which was the subject matter of challenge in appeal by the
husband where the compensation was reduced, and therefore,
the applicant has preferred the revision application.
3. The learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is represented by the High Court Legal Aid Service
Committee and that before the Domestic Violence Court also
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16874/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
the applicant was represented by the Legal Aid Service
Committee, and therefore, there was a communication gap
because of which the applicant was not aware of the
termination of the proceedings before the Appellate Court. It is
submitted that the judgment and order impugned was
pronounced. Both, applicant and respondent were residing
together.
4. The learned advocate has, thereafter, indicated that
immediately after the passing of the order, the applicant
through her advocate made an application for certified copy
which was received but it was only at belated stage that the
applicant could make out that the Revision before the High
Court can also be preferred by and through the High Court
Legal Service Authority.
5. As against this, learned advocate appearing for the
respondent-husband has objected to the grant of application
indicating that over and above the present proceedings the
applicant had initiated three other proceedings, and therefore,
the applicant is very much aware about the legal process, and
therefore, cannot claim ignorance about the outcome of any
process.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and having
perused the documents on record, it appears that the applicant
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16874/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/12/2023
undefined
has preferred the Revision Application against the judgment
and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in its order
dated 08.08.2022. The fact is that the applicant was
represented before the appellate authority by the concerned
legal service authorities and according to the averments made
in para-2, the applicant came to know about the final outcome
of the order passed in August only in the month of January
when she made an application for certified copy and received
the same on 04.02.2023. It was only in May, 2023 that the
applicant came to know about the facility available for
challenging the order through the High Court Legal Service
Authority, and accordingly, the process consumes some time,
therefore, the delay of 272 days has occurred.
7. In the opinion of the Court the applicant-wife
representing her interest as well as two minor children and the
respondent is the husband, and therefore, the delay cannot be
considered to be inordinate delay. Hence, ground is made out
to condone the delay. The application is allowed. The delay of
272 days in preferring the Revision Application against the
judgment and order dated 08.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.4
of 2017 by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat at Bardoli
is hereby condoned. The main matter to be listed in seriatim.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
Manoj Kumar Rai
