JUDGEMENT
Gita Gopi,J. -
(1.)Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent State. With the consent of learned advocates on both the sides, the matter is heard today finally.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 13.07.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhuj - Kachchh in Criminal Misc. Application No.79 of 2018, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 130 days in filing appeal came to be rejected.
(2.)The facts in brief are as under;
The marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.2 herein was solemnized on 24.04.1997 and out of the wedlock, three children were also born. In and around the year 2001, on account of some matrimonial discord, the petitioner and respondent No.2 started residing separately. In 2007, the respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. Application No.25 of 2007 seeking maintenance, which came to be partly allowed in the year 2010 whereby, the petitioner was ordered to pay Rs.4300/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance. In 2015, respondent No.2 filed application being Criminal Misc. Application No.227 of 2015 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Mandvi-Kachchh. The concerned Magisterial Court partly allowed the application by order dated 14.08.2017. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the Magisterial Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. Along with the appeal, the petitioner had preferred an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which came to be numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No.79 of 2018. After hearing both the sides, the Sessions Court rejected the said application by order dated 13.07.2018. Hence, this petition.
(3.)It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was residing in a village situated around 75 kms away from Mandvi, Kachchh. On receipt of the certified copy of the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the Magisterial Court at Mandvi, the petitioner contacted his Advocate for further legal recourse. However, on account of some communication gap between the petitioner and his Advocate, delay of 130 days had occasioned in filing appeal before the Sessions Court concerned. It was submitted that the petitioner had given detailed explanation in the application filed before the Sessions Court seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. However, the Sessions Court rejected the application ignoring the fact that the delay in question had occasioned on account of some miscommunication between the petitioner and his Advocate.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.