Himachal Pradesh High Court
CRMPM/776/2026 of JITENDER KUMAR Vs MASTER NISHANT (MINOR) AND ANOTHER on 30 September 2026
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.776 of 2026 in Cr.Rev.(FC)ST No.3233 of 2026 Decided on: 30.09.2026 Jitender Kumar … Applicant Versus Master Nishant (Minor) & another … non-applicants Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
2026:HHC:42512 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No.776 of 2026 in Cr.Rev.(FC)ST No.3233 of 2026 Decided on: 30.09.2026 Jitender Kumar … Applicant Versus Master Nishant (Minor) & another … non-applicants
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________
_
For the applicant: Ms. Neha Thakur, Advocate. For the non-applicants: Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of 2 years and 4 months’ delay in filing the Criminal Revision Petition. The contents of the application, as have been made in Paras 2 to 4 of the application, read as under:- “2. That there is delay of approximately two years and four months in filing the petition. That the primary reason for this delay is that the Divorce Petition (Filed in 2020) between the parties was in an active stage of settlement/mediation.
3. That the Applicant, in good faith, believed that since the entire matrimonial dispute (including maintenance) was being discussed for a final global settlement, there was no immediate necessity to challenge the maintenance order separately.
4. That the Petitioner was under the Bona-fide impression that once the Divorce was settled, the maintenance issue would also be resolved amicably. However, with the sudden issuance of the Non- Bailable Warrant (NBW) on 18.03.2026, the Petitioner realized that he must seek legal protection from this Hon'ble Court.”
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2026:HHC:42512 [
2. In our considered, view the grounds mentioned in the application, are not good grounds for condoning the delay of more than two years. It was not the case of the applicants/petitioner that he was not aware of the adjudication made by the learned Court below or that he could not approach the Court either within the period of limitation or within a reasonable period thereafter, for reasons which were beyond his control. In fact, the averments made in the application demonstrate that despite having full knowledge of the order which was passed by the learned Court below, the applicant/petitioner took a conscious decision not to challenge it and it was only thereafter, when non-bailable warrants were issued, as he was not honoring the award passed by the learned Court below, that he filed this revision petition along with the present application for condonation of delay.
3. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as we do not find any justification in condoning the delay of two years and four months in filing the Criminal Revision Petition, present application is dismissed, so also is the fate of the main case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge (Yogesh Jaswal) Judge
September 30, 2026 (Rishi)