Smt. Nirmalabai and Another vs Dr. Omprakash and Another

N.K. Jain, J.—This petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 8.1.2000 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mhow, in Cr. Revision No. 439/2000 dismissing the same as barred by time.

Applicant No. 1 Smt. Nirmalabai is the wife of respondent No. 1 Dr. Omprakash and applicant No. 2 Vishal and respondent No. 2 Nirdosh are their sons. The applicants made an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mhow, for grant of maintenance by respondent No. 1. Their application was dismissed by the Magistrate vide order dated 18.2.2000 in Misc. Cr. Case No. 13/98. Revision preferred against this order was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, as barred by limitation. The application made u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was also dismissed by the same order dated 8.1.2001 which is sought to be impugned in this petition.

The revision preferred before the Sessions Court below was delayed by 157 days. The applicants also made application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act supported by appropriate affidavit giving their reasons for the delay. The application was opposed by respondent No. 1. The learned ASJ in his order dated 8.1.2001 observed that every day''s delay has not been explained by the applicants. With this observation the application as also the revision were dismissed.

It is well settled that the words ''sufficient cause" occurring in Section 5, should be construed liberally. Acceptability of explanation is the sole criterion, length of the delay is not relevant. In absence of mala fides or deliberate delay as a dilatory tactic, Court should normally condone the delay. (See : N. Balkrishnan VII (1998) SLT 334=1998 (7) SC 123.

The prime function of the Court of law is to administer justice and this is better achieved when the litigant has reasonable opportunity of being heard. The applicants should get justice on merits. In the instant case, I find, the Revisional Court below has rather taken too technical view of the matter ignoring the basic object of law of limitation and particularly of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 125, Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision intended to help destituted women, children and old parents. Applicant No. 1 is a housewife ignorant about the technicalities of law while applicant No. 2 is a minor child. It was clearly stated by them in their application that they were informed belatedly by their Lawyer about the dismissal of their application by the Magistrate and that was the reason for not preferring the revision in time. This, according to me, was a sufficient cause for the delay which deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice.

I, accordingly allow this revision, set aside the impugned order and direct that the revision shall now go back to the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Mhow. The delay in filing the revision shall stand condoned and the Revisional Court below shall hear and decide the revision on merits in conformity with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court below on 23.7.2001.

Cc. to both parties within 7 days.