Karuppiah v. Anchammai

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twentieth day of July Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN CRL MP(MD) No.3552 of 2017 IN CRL RC(MD) No.SR8621 of 2017 KARUPPIAH ... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vs 1 ANCHAMMAI 2 MINOR JOTHILAKSHMI 3 MINOR THANALAKSHMI ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to condone the delay of 239 days for filling the above said Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.C.(MD).No. of 2017 against the order passed in Crl.(A).No.29 of 2015 on the file of the Fast Track Makila Court, Sivagangai dated 06.07.2016 modifying the order in M.C.No. 15 of 2013 dated 15.09.

2014 on the file of the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.V.MUTHUVELAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.R.SENTHILKUMAR, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:- This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 239 days in filing the above revision. The petitioner has filed this revision against the order passed in Crl.A.No.29 of 2015, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, modifying the maintenance amount ordered by the trial court.

2. Earlier, the trial court granted maintenance to the respondent at Rs.2,000/-per month. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal. In the appeal, the lower appellate court has modified the maintenance. Now, challenging that order, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.

3. I have heard Mr.V.Muthuvelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sathiskumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and I have gone through the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The only reason stated by the petitioner is that he has not aware of the provision available to file revision against the order.

Hence, he has not filed the revision in time.

5. The reason stated by the petitioner is not acceptable and not sufficient to condone the delay. Further, I am not convinced with the reason for delay. Hence, this delay condonation petition is dismissed.

sd/- 20/07/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDGE, FAST TRACK MAHILA COURT, SIVAGANGAI 2 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUPPATHUR 3 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT JAM/26.07.17/RR-BS/SAR 2 /2p-4c

ORDER

IN CRL MP(MD) No.3552 of 2017 IN CRL RC(MD) No.SR8621 of 2017 Date :20/07/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/