Gujarat High Court
Kalpeshbhai Bhikhabhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22319/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
22319 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 40210 of 2025
==========================================================
KALPESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHAD K PATEL(2844) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR NIRAJ SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of
512 days caused in preferring the captioned revision application.
2. Learned advocate for the applicant has initially submitted that the
applicant is not ready to deposit any amount towards arrears, citing his
incapacity to deposit the amount in question.
3. Reverting to the facts of the case, it transpires that the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, passed an order dated
06.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.400 of 2022, partly
allowing the application preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3 under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the said order, the
applicant-husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- and
Rs.2,000/- per month towards the maintenance of respondent Nos.2 and 3
respectively, from the date of the application, along with consequential
costs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22319/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
4. It further transpires that on default of payment of maintenance by
the applicant, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 230
days for non-payment of maintenance for 23 months.
5. The learned advocate for the applicant has sought condonation of
delay on the grounds stated in paragraph No.3 of the present application.
However, no cogent or satisfactory grounds have been made out to
establish that the applicant was under reasonable circumstances justifying
the delay in filing the present application within the prescribed period of
limitation. The applicant's continued reluctance to pay maintenance also
reflects adversely on his conduct, disentitling him to the equitable relief
prayed for. Hence, no sufficient cause is made out to enable this Court to
exercise its discretion to condone the delay.
6. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant, this court does
not incline to entertain the present application considering the gross delay
of 512 days has been caused in preferring the captioned revision
application. The approach on the part of the applicant requires to be seen
that after passing of the impugned order, nowhere the applicant has stated
or contended that as to what kind of steps have been taken by the
applicant to challenge the impugned order nor any sort of any material is
even placed on record to show that delay was caused bona-fidely.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K.B.Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal)
Versus Gyanendra Pratap And Others reported in 2024 (4) SCR 616, after
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy
& Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, held followings:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22319/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
"10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of
a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not
to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or
want of due diligence on part of the litigant ( See Majji Sannemma
@ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi and Others (2021) 18 SCC 384 ).
The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence
of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the
delay ( See P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Anr.,
(1997) 7 SCC 556 ). Thus, it is apparent that the words sufficient
cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal
construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona
fide is imputable to the litigant ( See Basawaraj and Anr. vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer., (2013) 14 SCC 81 ). The
principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay
were succinctly summarised by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee
vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and
Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 ."
8. Indeed, the liberal approach is required to be adopted for
condonation of delay provided delay is sufficiently explained. Fewer days
delay can receive the liberal approach; but when there is a gross delay the
litigant seeking condonation of delay without explaining it properly and
in absence of sufficient explanation, delay is not required to be condoned.
No reasons are stated by the applicant and no such satisfactory
explanation are mentioned in the application and therefore the present
application deserves to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/22319/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
9. In the result, the captioned application fails and is accordingly
dismissed. Registry to refuse the filing number of the main revision
application.
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
MVP
