Jayashree Pushkar Kale v. Pushkar Rajeev Kale And ANR

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.59/2018 IN CRIMINAL REVISION (ST)NO.73/2018 Oce Notes, Oce Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate Mr. VR Kasle for applicant.

Advocate Mr.Abhijeet D. Sarwate for Respondent.

CORAM : K. K. TATED, J DATE : JULY 24, 2019.

P.C.:

Heard learned counsel for parties.

2.

By this application, applicant is seeking condonation of 212 days delay in ,ling Criminal Revision Application, challenging Judgment and Order passed by the Family Court, Pune dated 30.3.2017 in P.A.No.

667/2010 and P.E.No.211/2010.

3.

Learned Advocate for applicant submits that though respondent is duly served no one appeared on her behalf.

1/4

4.

Learned Advocate for applicant submits that, there is delay in ,ling application for want of ,nancial assistance. Learned advocate for applicant submits that for want of knowledge about ,ling Revision before this Court, it remained on the part of applicant to ,le the same immediately. He submits that they have good chance of success. He submits that in the interest of justice, this Court be pleased to condone the delay in ,ling Revision. He further submits that even in present proceeding Respondent/husband also ,led Criminal Revision Application challenging same Judgment and Decree passed by the Family Court. There was delay on the part of husband to ,le revision. Hence, they preferred Criminal Application No.252/2018.

Same was allowed by this court today only.

He submits that in the interest of justice, this Court be pleased to hear the same on merits.

On the other hand, learned Advocate for Respondent, vehemently opposed the application. He submits that applicant failed to disclose sucient cause of 212 2/4

days delay in ,ling civil application. He submits that the reasons given by applicant tin para 4-B are not correct. He submits that there was no arrears of maintenance charges. Therefore, there is no question of believing para 4-B. He submits that in para 4 as applicant has stated that for want of knowledge it remained on their part to ,le the revision in time. He submits that that can not be a ground for condoning delay.

Learned counsel for Respondent submits that applicant stated that delay was not intentional but same was caused for want of knowledge of legal provisions and procedures applicant could not approach her counsel and give proper instructions. He submits that that cannot be a ground to condone delay. There is no substance in present application and same be dismissed with costs.

7.

Heard the counsel for parties. It is to be noted that, same Judgment and decree passed by the Family Court Pune in Petition A-667/2011 challenged by respondent/husband by ,ling criminal revision.

There was delay in ,ling 3/4

application. Hence respondent preferred Criminal Application No.52/2018. That was allowed by this court.

8.

Considering these facts and the reasons disclosed by applicant and as law laid down by the Apex Court, I am satis,ed that applicant has made out a case for allowing this application. Hence the following order. a)Delay in ,ling revision is condoned.

b) No order as to cost.

(K.K.TATED, J.) 4/4