Delhi District Court
Sunil Gupta vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 24 May, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ JAIN: ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI
DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 48/2017
CNR No. DLNW01-003562-2017
Sunil Gupta
Son of Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta
Resident of D-555, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur, New Delhi-34 ............................... Appellant
Versus
1 State (NCT of Delhi)
2 Madhu Gupta
Wife of Sh. Sunil Gupta
D/o Sh. Prem Pal
Resident of H.No. B-5,
Hari Enclave, Sultan Puri,
Delhi-110086 .......................... Respondents
Date of allocation of appeal: 13.04.2017
Date of conclusion of arguments: 24.05.2017
Date of order: 24.05.2017
Memo of Appearance
Sh. Suraj Panwar, learned counsel for appellant.
Sh. A.B. Asthana, learned Addl. PP for State/respondent No.1.
Sh. Satish Solanki, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
JUDGMENT(OPEN COURT)
1 Appellant Sunil Gupta has taken exception to order dated 01/08/2015 whereby he has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- per month from the date of the passing of the order till the disposal of the petition.
2 It is evident that there is inordinate delay in lodging the appeal. Impugned order is dated 01/08/2015 and the appeal has been filed on Criminal Appeal No. 48/2017 (Sunil Gupta Vs State & Anr) page 1 of 4 12/04/2017. An application u/s 5 of Limitation Act has also been filed whereby appellant has prayed that the delay may be condoned. Reason given by him is cryptic and vague. He has claimed that since he was arranging the expenses for filing the appeal and could not arrange the litigation fee for his new counsel, the delay has taken place.
3 Appellant has also relied upon Ashish Gupta Vs Nalini Gupta, MANU/DE/4794/2009 and Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Smt. Raj Kumari and Anr., AIR 1970 SC 234 and it has been contended that maintenance amount is very high. I would, however, make it amply clear that I would touch the merits of the case only when I am satisfied that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause and, therefore, could not file the appeal within prescribed period.
4 Said application has been vehemently resisted by respondents. It has been contended that the delay is deliberate and intentional and the appellant knew about the impugned order all along and has taken a false and unbelievable plea that he was short of funds and, therefore, delay has caused.
5 I am mindful of the fact that the period for filing appeal is 30 days.
6 It has also been brought to my notice that even respondent No.2 Madhu Gupta was aggrieved by the impugned order and even she had filed a revision petition as she wanted the maintenance to be awarded from the date of filing of the petition instead from the date of order. Such revision was dismissed on 02/08/2016 by Sh. Yogesh Khanna, the then learned District & Sessions Judge, North-West (as His Lordship was then) on the ground of delay.
7 As per the impugned order, the maintenance amount is Rs. 7,500/- per month and the arrears, as of now, are to the tune of Rs. 1,27,500/- approximately. Out of said amount, admittedly, the appellant has so far paid a paltry sum of Rs. 6,000/- and respondent No.2 is forced to seek execution of the order albeit to little effect.
Criminal Appeal No. 48/2017 (Sunil Gupta Vs State & Anr) page 2 of 4 8 I have also seen the affidavit which the appellant had filed before the learned Trial Court. He claimed himself to be 8 th pass with no professional qualification. He has no other family member whom he is required to take care. He is neither in any service nor is having any income from any other source. He is having no bank account,no fixed deposit and no other valuable security. If his affidavit is to be believed, he does not even possess any mobile or landline phone. If one goes through his affidavit, it would rather show that he is virtually a pauper living in acute penury. It really beats my imagination as to why he ventured into matrimonial alliance and thought of spoiling one more life, if he is not in a position to maintain himself.
9 Coming to the application seeking condonation of delay, I have no hesitation in holding that the application does not disclose any reason much less a compelling one which may persuade this Court to condone the delay.
10 Undoubtedly, endeavour of the Court should be to decide the lis on merits instead of taking any technical or hyper-technical approach. However, factual matrix of the present case compels me not to take any unwarranted humanitarian or misplaced liberal view particularly keeping in mind the nonchalant and casual approach displayed by the appellant all along.
11 Delay is not of a small period. It is of considerable duration. Moreover, while considering any such condonation, the Court should also look into the conduct of the party. Appellant is a chronic defaulter.
12 Complaint u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 was filed way back on 29/08/2011. We are already in the middle of year 2017 and it is indeed unfortunate that the appellant is least concerned about the maintenance of his estranged wife despite the fact that the impugned order is with effect from 01/08/2015 and not from date of filing.
13 Appellant cannot be permitted to take the things for granted. As per Criminal Appeal No. 48/2017 (Sunil Gupta Vs State & Anr) page 3 of 4 the settled position of law, delay of each and every day is required to be explained. In the case in hand, the appellant has attempted to explain the delay of around 18 months by one stroke of line. He has baldly claimed that he could not arrange the funds. He has not bothered to explain as to how he was able to arrange the funds. His only aim is to delay the inevitable on one pretext or other. I hasten to supplement that the Court should not be party to his conduct by coming to his rescue when he has not even bothered to obey the directions contained in the impugned order and has woken from his slumber after 18 months. If I give any leverage and show any undue lenience to appellant, this would, unjustifiably, compound the miseries of respondent no. 2 who knocked the doors of the Court in the year 2011 and yet to get her legitimate dues.
14 As per Section 5 of Limitation Act, any appeal may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal. Appellant has evidently failed to disclose any ground much less a sufficient one and, therefore, I have no hesitation in dismissing his application.
15 Application is accordingly dismissed and resultantly, appeal is also held as time-barred and, therefore, not liable to be entertained.
16 A copy this order be sent to learned trial court along with trial court record.
17 File pertaining to appeal be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (MANOJ JAIN)
On this 24th day of May 2017 Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC)
North-West District, Rohini: Delhi
Digitally signed by MANOJ JAIN
MANOJ JAIN Date: 2017.05.24 15:25:49 +0530
Criminal Appeal No. 48/2017 (Sunil Gupta Vs State & Anr) page 4 of 4