Shilpa & Anr. Vs. Madhukar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 558-559 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 677-78/2000)
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 677-78/2000)
Petitioner: Shilpa & Anr.
Respondent: Madhukar & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 558-559 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 677-78/2000)
(Arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos. 677-78/2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 21, 2000
Head Note:
PRACTAICE AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 125 – Maintenance – Magistrate granting but Sessions Judge interfering – Wife going to High Court, where petition dismissed on the grounds of limitation. Held that High Court should have condoned the delay and entertain petition on merits. Remitted to High Court.
(Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The complainant – respondent no. 1, though has been served but does not appear. The service must be treated to be sufficient in view of the office report. The said respondent no. 2 is present.
3. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant, the Magistrate granted maintenance. Against the said order, the husband approached the Sessions Judge in revision and the Sessions Judge interfered with the same. The wife approached the High Court and the High Court however, without going into the merits of the matter, dismissed the application on the ground of limitation.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order of the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court would have done well in condoning the delay and entertaining the application of revision and disposing of the same on merits. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for redisposal of the same on merits.
5. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The complainant – respondent no. 1, though has been served but does not appear. The service must be treated to be sufficient in view of the office report. The said respondent no. 2 is present.
3. In a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant, the Magistrate granted maintenance. Against the said order, the husband approached the Sessions Judge in revision and the Sessions Judge interfered with the same. The wife approached the High Court and the High Court however, without going into the merits of the matter, dismissed the application on the ground of limitation.
4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and on going through the impugned order of the High Court, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the High Court would have done well in condoning the delay and entertaining the application of revision and disposing of the same on merits. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for redisposal of the same on merits.
5. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
