Madras High Court

M.Senthilvelmurugan vs Sankareswari on 8 October, 2025

                                                                                       CRL.MP(MD)No.11483 of 2025


                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 DATED: 08.10.2025

                                                         CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

                                          CRL.MP(MD)No.11483 of 2025
                                                     In
                                         CRL RC(MD)SR.No.32251 of 2025

                    M.Senthilvelmurugan,
                    S/o.Muthuchamy,
                    Jaminasalvarpatti Village,
                    Narnapuram Post,
                    Sivakasi Taluk,
                    Virudhunagar District.                                                      ...Petitioner
                                                                   Vs

                    1.Sankareswari,
                      W/o.Senthilvelmurugan

                    2.Minor.Vairalakshmi,
                      D/o.Senthilvelmurugan

                    3.Minor Vairamuthu,
                      S/o.Senthilvelmurugan

                    The Respondents 2 & 3 are minors
                    Represented by Mother and
                    Natural Guardian, the 1st Respondent herein
                    All are residing at
                    T.Pacheri Village, Tiruchuli Taluk,
                    Virudhunagar District.                                                 ...Respondents

                    1/16




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )
                                                                                             CRL.MP(MD)No.11483 of 2025


                    PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to
                    condone the delay of 973 days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition in
                    Crl.RC(MD)SR.No.32251 of 2025, as against the order passed by the
                    District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli, Virudhunagar
                    District in M.C.No.11 of 2021 on 27.08.2022.


                                  For Petitioner            : Mr.M.Jothi Basu


                                                               ORDER

Heard Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

and also this Court has taken the assistance of Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad,

learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

2. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 973 days in filing

the Criminal Revision Case in Crl.RC(MD)SR.No.32251 of 2025

as against the order passed by the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate

Court, Tiruchuli, Virudhunagar District in M.C.No.11 of 2021 on

27.08.2022, by which the 1st Respondent was awarded Rs.3,000/- and the

2nd and 3rd Respondents were awarded Rs.3,000/- each per month, totalling

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

Rs.9,000/- as maintenance allowance.

3. The facts of case, in a nutshell, led to filing of this Petition and

necessary for disposal of same, are as follows:-

a) The Petitioner and the 1st Respondent are husband and wife. The 2nd and

3rd Respondents are their children. The marriage between the petitioner and

the respondent was solemnized on 13.12.2009. Due to difference of

opinion, they are living separately and the Petitioner has filed a petition for

divorce before the Sub Court, Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District in HMOP

No.340 of 2017 and as a counter blast, the 1 st Respondent has filed a

petition in M.C.18 of 2018 before the Judicial Magistrate Court,

Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District for maintenance. Thereafter, the case

was transferred to District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli,

Virudhunagar District in M.C.No.11 of 2021 and the Family Court vide

order dated 27.08.2022 awarded Rs.3,000/- as maintenance to the 1st

Respondent and Rs.3,000/- each to the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, totalling

Rs.9,000/- as maintenance allowance.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

b) The Respondent filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2910 of 2023 claiming

arrears of maintenance; the trial court passed an ex-parte order, issued a

bailable warrant, and directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as part

payment on or before 10.09.2025, on which condition the warrant was

recalled.

c) The Petitioner had no knowledge of the case transferred from the

Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai to the District Munsif and Judicial

Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli, and no knowledge of the ex-parte order or the

maintenance arrears application until arrest on 18.08.2025. Under such

circumstances, the Petitioner was unable to file the present Criminal

Revision Petition within the stipulated time, resulting in a delay of 973

days. Hence, the present petition is filed along with a prayer to condone

the said delay.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay of 973

days in filing the Criminal Revision Petition is neither deliberate nor

wilfull. Hence, he prays that this Court may be pleased to allow the

petition by condoning the delay in the interest of justice.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

5.Mr.A.S.Abul Kalam Azad, learned Government Advocate (Criminal

Side) appeared for the the State assisted this Court in the matter, has

vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

Revision Petitioner and submits that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition

filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, prima facie, not legally

maintainable. He further contends that the miscellaneous petition seeking

condonation of the inordinate delay of 973 days in filing the criminal

revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the

contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the

learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State and

also perused the entire materials available on record.

7. The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section

5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 973 days

in filing the Criminal Revision Petition.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

8. The standard period of limitation for filing a Criminal Revision

Petition under Section 438 r/w 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), is 90 days

from the date of the impugned order, as stipulated under Article 131 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. In the present case, the Criminal Revision Petition

has been filed with a delay of 973 days. However, under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, 1963, the Court is empowered to condone the delay if the

Petitioner is able to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not preferring the

revision within the prescribed limitation period. The explanation offered

must be reasonable, bona fide, and not indicative of negligence or inaction.

9. After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a

satisfactory explanation nor any reasons for the inordinate delay of 973

days in filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking

condonation of delay. Hence, the petition is time-barred and cannot be

sustained on the ground of laches.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

10. The expression “sufficient cause“ and satisfactory explanation has

been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial

justice and generally a delay in preferring a petition may be condoned in

interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack

of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In the

case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, reported in 1987(2)

SCC 107, the Honourable Supreme Court said that when substantial

justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of

substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim

to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate

delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of

its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is

capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

11. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala,

reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Honourable Supreme Court was

pleased to observe as under:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.“

12. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties.

They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective

that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights.

They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy

is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute

relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for

redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the

wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes

would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by

approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy.

Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending

uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation is

founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae

up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to

litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes barred by time,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason that once limitation

expires, other party matures his rights on the subject with attainment of

finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to condone delay would

result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth his cause but

simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled to sit and feel

carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved from persistent

and continued litigation.

13. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is

always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a matter by

not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but then the

words “sufficient cause“ show that delay, if any, occurred, should not be

deliberate, negligent and due to casual approach of concerned litigant, but,

it should be bona fide, and, for the reasons beyond his control, and, in any

case should not lack bona fide. If the explanation does not smack of lack of

bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the litigant, but,

when there is apparent casual approach on the part of litigant, the approach

of Court is also bound to change. Lapse on the part of litigant in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

approaching Court within time is understandable but a total inaction for

long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever and that too in

absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of litigant, would add

to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going against him.

14. I need not to burden this judgment with a catena of decisions

explaining and laying down as to what should be the approach of Court on

construing “sufficient cause“ and it would be suffice to refer a very few of

them besides those already referred.

15. In the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari,

reported, AIR 1969 SC 575, a three Judge Bench of the Court said that

unless want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a

party of the protection, the application must not be thrown out or any delay

cannot be refused to be condoned.

16. The Privy Council, in the case of Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi

Ram reported in ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94, observed that true guide for a

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

court to exercise the discretion is whether the appellant acted with

reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds

good inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly

been referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and

others, AIR 2005 SC 2191.

17. In the case of Vedabai @ Vijayanatabai Baburao Vs.

Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 608,

the Court said that under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it should adopt a

pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the

delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the

former case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant

factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case

no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal

approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the

basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

18. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. Vs.

Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, reported

in (2008) 17 SCC 448, in para 17 of the judgment, the Court said :-

“...The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and state claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not slumber over their rights.“

19. In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012 (5) SCC 157, in para

18 of the judgment, the Court said as under:-

“What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bonafides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the decision making process but no premium can be given for total lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the State and / or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the public interest.“

20. After taking into consideration the averments made in the

application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing the

learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that the

Petitioner has explained the delay in filing the present Criminal Revision

Petition.

21. In my view, the kind of explanation rendered herein does not

satisfy the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court that if delay has

occurred for reasons, which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should

be reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, I find that here is a

case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

of the Petitioner, which has remain virtually unexplained at all. Therefore,

I do not find any reason to exercise my judicial discretion exercising

judiciously so as to justify the condonation of delay in the present case.

22. In the result, in the light of the above said observations and

discussions made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above,

this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 973 days in filing

the Criminal Revision Petition is baseless and the same is hereby rejected.

23. In view of the above, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is

dismissed, as devoid of merits. There is no order as to costs.

24. This Court does not find any merit in the Petitioner's case and the

District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli, Virudhunagar

District had rightly passed the order in M.C.No.11 of 2021 dated

27.08.2022.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/10/2025 01:29:08 pm )

25. In view of the above, the criminal revision case in

Crl.R.C(MD)SR.No.32251 of 2025 lacks merit and stands dismissed and

the District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruchuli, Virudhunagar

District, is directed to proceed the matter in accordance with law for

recovery of arrears amount. The file is consigned to record. There is no

order as to costs.

08.10.2025

Nsr Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking

To: