Gujarat High Court
Navinkumar Mulchandbhai @ Modabhai ... vs Bhavnaben D/O Dhansukh Parmar on 26 February, 2020
Author: B.N. Karia
Bench: B.N. Karia
R/CR.MA/22121/2019 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 22121 of 2019
In R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1569 of 2019
==========================================================
NAVINKUMAR MULCHANDBHAI @ MODABHAI VASOYA (PATEL)
Versus
BHAVNABEN D/O DHANSUKH PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIMESH M PATEL(6780) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
AVANI V PATEL(8016) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS. M.H. BHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 26/02/2020
ORAL ORDER
By way of preferring this Criminal Misc. Application, applicant has requested to condone the delay of 1977 days in preferring Criminal Revision Application No.1569 of 2019 against the impugned judgment and order dated 25.03.2014 passed by Learned Judge, Family Court, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No.283 of 2013.
Heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State.
Learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that on 03.06.2013, an application under Section 125 of Cr. P.C. was Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 13:13:51 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/22121/2019 ORDER preferred by the respondent No.1 before the Family Court, Surat, wherein no notice was received by the present applicant nor it was served. That, applicant himself was not aware about any proceedings came to be filed by the respondent No.1 because he was under bonafide impression that a mutual customary divorce was taken place between both the parties and respondent No.1 had voluntarily waived her all rights and therefore, there was no question of seeking maintenance by the respondent No.1. They took divorce with oblique motive she filed an application under Section 125 (3)of Cr.P.C. wherein, ex parte order came to be passed within 2-3 adjournments. That, applicant came to know about proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C., when police came to his house and informed that warrant was issued against him in respect of the proceedings. The applicant had immediately applied for certified copy of necessary documents through his local advocate and came to know about such proceedings on 15.11.2019. Thereafter, he took advice from his friends, relatives and contacted his advocate. Thereafter, there Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 13:13:51 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/22121/2019 ORDER is a dealy of 1977 days occurred in preferring Criminal Revision Application. There was no negligency on the part of the applicant in preferring this application. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicant to condone the delay of 1977 days occurred in filing Criminal Revision Application No.1569 of 2019.
From the other side, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has opposed the prayer made by the present applicant and argued that,notice was duly served to the present applicant in a proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 (3) of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Surat i.e. on 03.06.2013. That, however notice was duly served to the present applicant, he voluntarily remained absent before the Family Court and not answered by filing any written objection nor any evidence. That necessary order was passed by the Family Court, Surat granting maintenance of Rs.2200/- to the respondent No.1 and Rs.1800/- to the respondent No.2-minor son. No amount of maintenance was paid as per the order passed by learned Family Court, Surat in application preferred under Section Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 13:13:51 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/22121/2019 ORDER 125(3) of Cr.P.C. for recovery of the arrears of amount in the year 2018 as well as in the year 2019. That, applicant was aware with the facts of filing maintenance application by the respondent No.1 before the Family Court, Surat. That, with a view to harass the respondent No.1, no amount of arrears was paid to her by the present applicant and no sufficient explanation is made by him to condone the delay. That, the divorce deed was forcibly executed by the applicant taking signature of respondent No.1, as observed by the learned Family Court, Surat. That applicant himself is negligent to approach this Court. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dismiss the application.
Learned APP for the respondent-State has requested to pass necessary order as the dispute is between the private parties.
Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocates of the respective parties and contents of the application, it appears that applicant has not Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 13:13:51 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/22121/2019 ORDER made any averments in the petition when he applied for certified copy of the judgment and order passed by the Family Court, Surat dated 25.03.2014 in Criminal Misc. Application No.283 of 2013. It was observed by the learned Family Judge, Surat that notice was duly served to the present applicant, however, he did not remain present to contest the application preferred by the respondent No.1 nor any report as well as written statement was submitted. Right to file written statement of the present applicant was closed by Family Court on 27.11.2013. Arrears of maintenance amount as per the order passed by the learned Family Court, Surat is not paid by the present applicant. On an inquiry made by this Court, applicant is not happy to clear the arrears amount as per the order passed by the learned Family Court, Surat. In absence of any specific averments made in the application, it appears that applicant himself is negligent for causing delay of 1977 days in preferring revision application, as he is not happy to pay maintenance amount to respondent-wife and minor son. He is trying to prolong the matter by not paying the arrears amount Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 13:13:51 IST 2020 R/CR.MA/22121/2019 ORDER as per the order passed by the learned Family Court, Surat. Two recovery applications under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C. were preferred by the respondent-wife in the year 2018 and 2019, however, applicant did not move to challenge the order granting maintenance in Criminal Misc. Application No.283 of 2013 on 25.03.2014.
As there is no sufficient explanation made by the present applicant to condone the delay of 1977 days, this Court is of the view to decline the prayer made by the applicant to condone the delay in preferring Criminal Revision Application No.1569 of 2019. Hence Criminal Misc. Application is ordered to be dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(B.N. KARIA, J) SUYASH Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 15 13:13:51 IST 2020