High Court Of ChhattisgarhCRR/903/2016dismissed

Sumandas Manikpuri v. Smt. Anusuiya Manikpuri

2016-09-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRR No. 903 of 2016 • Sumandas Manikpuri S/o Late Kapildas Manikpuri, Aged About 35 Years, Occupation Labour, R/o Village- Khongsara, Amagohan, At Post- Belgahna, Police Station & Tehsil- Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

1. Smt. Anusuiya Manikpuri W/o Sumandas Manikpuri, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Khongsara, Amagohan, At Post- Belgahna, Police Station & Tehsil- Kota, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address Near Adarsh Nagar Girls Hostel, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

2. Kumari Vanya D/o Sumandas Manikpuri Aged About 4 Years, Through Natural Guardian Smt. Anusuiya Manikpuri W/o Sumandas Manikpuri Aged 4 Years, R/o Near Adarsh Nagar Girls Hostel, Kawardha, District Kabridham, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For applicant :

Shri Basant Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 23/09/2016

1. The present petition has been preferred against the order dated 11/05/2015 passed by the Family Court, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 01/2015.

2. The record shows that the present revision petition is delayed over 1 year i.e. by 404 days .

3. Heard on I.A. No. 1 which is an application for condonation of delay.

4. The contents of the application for condonation of delay reflects that the only ground raised is that the applicant is a poor and rustic villager and no other ground has been raised by the applicant to justify the delay caused.

5. A perusal of the order further reflects that the Court below has ordered for grant

of maintenance amount of Rs.1000/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.800/- to the respondent No.2. Taking into consideration the meager amount of maintenance awarded by the Family Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application for condonation of delay which has been filed without any plausible explanation for the delay caused, neither has been any justification given in the application nor in his submission by the counsel for the applicant.

6. Accordingly I.A. No.1 for condonation of delay stands rejected. Consequently, the Criminal Revision also stands rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge