VIJAYPARI LALPARI GOSWAMIversusRANJANBEN VIJAYPARI GOSWAMI

     R/CR.MA/18491/2026                              ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
                        18491 of 2026

             In F/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION/22015/2026
==========================================================
                       VIJAYPARI LALPARI GOSWAMI
                                  Versus
                   RANJANBEN VIJAYPARI GOSWAMI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. C.M. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO

                              Date : 11/08/2026

                                ORAL ORDER


1.      Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the

Respondent State.


2.      Heard        nally with the consent of the learned advocates

appearing for the respective parties.


3.      Learned advocate Ms. Alka B. Vaniya for the applicant

submits that the applicant is in jail undergoing the sentence

as he has not paid the outstanding amount of maintenance

and intends to challenge the order passed by the Family

Court, Junagadh, sentencing him to simple imprisonment for

360 days for non-payment of the maintenance amount from

07.01.2024 to 07.01.2025. Learned advocate further submits



                                  Page 1 of 5
     R/CR.MA/18491/2026                                        ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




that     the     applicant        had      also       preferred   Criminal        Misc.

Application No.12036 of 2026 and Criminal Misc. Application

No.14014 of 2026 for condonation of delay and the matters

were listed yesterday and even though the rule was served to

the respondent No.2, she did not appear before the learned

Trial Court and the delay in those matters has been condoned.


4.      The present application seeks condonation of delay of

168 days in preferring the accompanying Criminal Revision

Application challenging the judgment and order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge a4irming the conviction and sentence

recorded by the learned Trial Court.


5.      The applicant has explained the delay by stating that

after pronouncement of the impugned judgment, certi ed

copies were obtained, legal advice was sought and necessary

documents required for                  ling the revision application were

collected.       It       is   contended     that       the   delay    was      neither

intentional           nor       deliberate        but     occasioned         due         to

circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.


6.      Learned           counsel    for    the       respondent      opposed        the

application contending that the explanation is not satisfactory




                                        Page 2 of 5
     R/CR.MA/18491/2026                         ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




and that the applicant has failed to demonstrate su4icient

cause warranting condonation of delay.


7.      I have considered the rival submissions and perused the

material placed on record.


8.      The law relating to condonation of delay is no longer res

integra. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst.

Katiji reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed that a liberal approach should ordinarily

be adopted while considering applications for condonation of

delay so as to advance substantial justice. The Court observed

that refusal to condone delay may result in a meritorious

matter being thrown out at the threshold and cause of justice

being defeated.


9.      In N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in

(1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court has observed that the

length of delay is not material; what is material is the

acceptability of the explanation. It was further held that

unless mala           des or gross negligence are imputable to the

party seeking condonation, the Court should lean in favour of

deciding matters on merits.




                                  Page 3 of 5
   R/CR.MA/18491/2026                            ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




10.   The Supreme Court has also reiterated in several

subsequent decisions that while “su4icient cause” must be

established, the expression should receive a pragmatic and

justice-oriented interpretation where refusal to condone delay

would result in denial of a statutory remedy and where no

serious prejudice is demonstrated by the opposite side.


11.   In the present case, the delay is of 168 days. The

explanation furnished by the applicant cannot be said to be

lacking in bona         des. There is nothing on record to indicate

that the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any

ulterior motive. Equally, no irreparable prejudice is shown to

be caused to the respondent if the delay is condoned. On the

contrary, refusal to condone the delay would result in the

applicant being deprived of an opportunity to challenge the

impugned judgment on merits in exercise of the revisional

jurisdiction of this Court.


12.   Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the fact

that the applicant is in jail undergoing the sentence as per the

order dated 03.09.2025, the explanation tendered by the

applicant and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, this Court is satis ed that su4icient cause has



                                 Page 4 of 5
     R/CR.MA/18491/2026                                                   ORDER DATED: 11/08/2026




been made out for condonation of delay.                                      Accordingly, the

application is allowed.


13.     The delay of 168 days in                             ling the Criminal Revision

Application is condoned.


14.     Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid term.




                                                                                    (S. V. PINTO,J)
ROHAN SONI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ROHAN SONI(HC02356), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 11/08/2026 18:59:40




                                               Page 5 of 5