Nasim Khan vs Rukaiya Bee
2022 Latest Caselaw 7163 MP

                                                                            1
                                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                                           BEFORE
                                                            HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
                                                                     ON THE 11th OF MAY, 2022

                                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2273 of 2021

                                                 Between:-
                                                 NASIM KHAN S/O SHRI ALEEM KHAN , AGED
                                                 ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MUSLIM
                                                 VILLAGE AASTA BARGHAT DIST SEONI MP
                                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                                                 (BY SHRI N.N.TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE)

                                                 AND

                                        1.       RUKAIYA BEE W/O NASIM KHAN , AGED ABOUT
                                                 22 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MUSLIM VILLAGE
                                                 AASTHA P.S. AND TEHSIL BARGHAT DIST
                                                 SEONI MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        2.       RUKSAR BEE D/O NASIM KHAN , AGED ABOUT
                                                 11   YEARS, OCCUPATION: MINOR THR.
                                                 GUARDIAN MOTHER RUKAIYA BEE VILAGE
                                                 AASTHA PS AND TEH. BARGHAT (MADHYA
                                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                                                 (BY SHRI SHARAD GUPTA - ADVOCATE )

                                               T h is revision coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
                                        following:
                                                                             ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the order of maintenance of Rs.2,500/- per month in favour of his wife and 11 months old daughter granted vide order dated 05.07.2018 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Seoni. Signature Not Verified SAN

2. Heard on I.A.No.16870/2021 which is an application for condonation Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2022.05.12 10:29:45 IST of delay in filing the revision.

3. As per office report, the petition is barred by 513 days even after exempting 552 days relaxed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 27.04.2021 in the wake of spread of COVID 19 pandemic

4. The sole ground taken by the petitioner is that he is illiterate labour and does not know the legal proceedings. He could not get information about the impugned order, therefore, could not appear before this Court in time. As he got information about the impugned order, he immediately managed to file this revision. The delay is genuine and bonafide and therefore, be condoned.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer. It is argued that the petitioner appeared in the trial Court and participated in the

hearing of the petition. He was duly represented by the counsel who defended him before the Family Court. Since the service of notice till the date of delivery of the order, he was well represented by the counsel. Therefore the ground of illiteracy does not amount to be a reasonable ground. It is also submitted that since the last four years, no maintenance has been paid by the petitioner. His conduct is not bonafide, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

6 . The facts have not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was duly represented before the trial Court till the date of delivery of order, therefore, the ground of illiteracy does not seems to be a bonafide ground. Except vague reason assigned in the application, nothing specific has been stated. Day to day delay has not been explained. There is delay of about 4 years and the petitioner has come with only a statement that he was not known about the order. When he could come to know about the order,

Signature Not Verified SAN has also not been mentioned in the application. Such a vague reason cannot be

Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN treated as a reasonable cause for delay, therefore, the application is dismissed. Date: 2022.05.12 10:29:45 IST

Consequently, the revision stands dismissed.

Pending I.As stands closed.

(VIRENDER SINGH) JUDGE anand

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANAND KRISHNA SEN Date: 2022.05.12 10:29:45 IST