Crl.M.Appl./72/2014 of SMTI CHANDRA DEB NANDI MAJUMDER Vs PRASENJIT NANDI MAJUMDER on 18 December 2014

Arguments

Party Name : SMTI CHANDRA DEB (NANDI MAJUMDER) Vs PRASENJIT NANDIMAJUMDER

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.C.DAS

Heard learned counsel, Ms. N. Guha for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. K. Nath forthe respondent.

This is a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delayof 214 days in preferring the connected Crl. Rev. P. No.28 of 2014.

The petitioner filed Misc. Case No.292 of 2011 in the Court of Judge, Family Court,Agartala under Section 125 of CrPC seeking maintenance against the opposite party. Herprayer for maintenance was rejected by judgment dated 22.05.2013.

It is contended by the petitioner that after the petition seeking maintenance wasdismissed, she was mentally upset and thereafter she fell ill and therefore she could notpresent the revisional application in time. She has, somehow, explained the delay andprayed for condoning the delay.

The opposite party contended that the petitioner did not come in clean hands andthat she made false statement in the condonation petition and additional affidavit andtherefore delay should not be condoned.

Learned counsel, Ms. Guha submitted that the petitioner after the maintenance case was dismissed, collected the copy and within one and half months she lost her father.Thereafter, she was mentally broken and was not in a position to take appropriate stepregarding filing of revisional application. Subsequently, she fell ill and was under treatmentof IGM Hospital. Later on, she consulted the learned counsel and applied for legal aid andthereafter filed the revisional application with the petition for condonation of delay.

Learned counsel, Mr. Nath submitted that according to law Family Court supplied acopy of the order at once after the order was passed. So, the contention of the petitionerthat she got the copy of the order passed by the Family Court later on is false. He has alsosubmitted that she was never admitted in the IGM Hospital and the medical certificatesubmitted with the additional affidavit might be false. In support of their contention learnedcounsel, Mr. Nath produced a copy of RTI information which shows that the petitioner wasnot admitted in the hospital. The medical certificate does not speak that she was admittedin the hospital but she has undergone treatment in the OPD.

The communication made under RTI shows that there was no entry in the register buther certificate seems to be issued by a medical officer of IGM hospital. Anyway, I do not liketo enter into the controversy for further investigation on the issue. Here a woman claimingto be the wife of the respondent-OP sought maintenance but her prayer for maintenancehas been rejected. She challenged the order.

Under such circumstances of the facts, I think, the matter should be better disposed of on merit, rather on technical grounds of limitation. Therefore, the prayer for condonationof delay of 214 days is allowed.

Accordingly delay stands condoned.

CM Application accordingly stands allowed.