Allahabad High Court
BRAJENDRA BABUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- VINOD DIWAKAR
Holding
The Court held that the delay could not be condoned and dismissed the revision on the ground of delay and laches.
Summary
The Family Court had awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000 to the wife and Rs.3,000 to her minor son. The husband filed a revision challenging that order, but the revision was filed 415 days after the impugned order, exceeding the limitation period. The husband alleged physical and mental cruelty, misappropriation of streedhan, and forced eviction, but failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The High Court examined the application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act and found no sufficient cause. Relying on the public policy of finality and the doctrine of laches, the Court refused to condone the delay. Consequently, the condonation application and the revision were dismissed without reaching the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay of 415 days in filing the revision can be condoned under the Limitation Act.
- Whether the revision can be entertained despite the delay and the doctrine of laches.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- delay condonation
- limitation period
- revision
- maintenance
- family law
- laches
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 244 of 2026
Brajendra Babu
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Raj Narayan Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 88
HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The present revision has been filed against the impugned order dated
10.9.20254, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded a maintenance
of Rs.7000 to the respondent-wife and Rs.3000/- per month to her minor
son.
3. The brief facts, as borne out from the record, are that the respondent-wife
(respondent no. 2 herein) was initially married about nine years ago to one
Abhay Pratap Singh in accordance with Hindu rites and customs, from the
said wedlock a male child was born. After the death of her first husband the
respondent no.2, on 06.01.2022, has solemnized her second marriage with
the present revisionist-husband, on the assurance extended by revisionist-
husband that he was employed in government service and was posted as a
constable at Police Station Jalesar. It is alleged that such representation
materially influenced the decision of the respondent no. 2 and her family to
enter into the matrimonial alliance.
4. It is further averred that soon after the solemnization of marriage, the
revisionist-husband started subjecting the respondent-wife to physical and
mental cruelty, including acts of abuse and assault. It has also been alleged
that the revisionist-husband unlawfully misappropriated and retained the
entire streedhan and other articles belonging exclusively to the respondent-
wife and, thereafter, forcibly ousted her from the matrimonial home.
CRLRD No. 244 of 2026
2
5. Upon perusal of the memo of revision, it reveals that the present revision
has been instituted after an inordinate delay of 415 days beyond the
prescribed period of limitation. The revisionist has failed to furnish any
cogent, convincing or satisfactory explanation for the entire period of delay.
No sufficient cause, within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the
Limitation Act, has been disclosed so as to justify condonation of the said
delay. The explanation offered is vague, unsupported by material particulars
and does not inspire confidence.
6. It is well settled that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and
is intended to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. A litigant who is
negligent or inactive and fails to approach the Court within the prescribed
time cannot claim indulgence as a matter of right. In the absence of
sufficient cause being shown, the Court is not empowered to condone the
delay merely on sympathetic or equitable considerations.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and settled legal position, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the present revision suffers from delay and laches
and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is dismissed and the
instant revision is also dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone,
without entering into the merits of the case.
February 18, 2026
A. Tripathi
(Vinod Diwakar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AKHILESH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…