M. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment dated 23-11-2002, in Cri. R. P. No. 194 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions judge, Tumkur, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the revision petition preferred by the wife and daughter of the husband - revision petitioner and had remanded the case to the Trial Court for disposal in accordance with law, challenging the legality and validity of the order impugned.

( 2 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri S. K. Venkata Reddy, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-husband and Sri S. A. Sami, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-wife and daughter.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-husband strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper. The learned Sessions Judge was not at all justified in arriving at the conclusion. The learned sessions Judge had totally not considered the provisions of Section 125 (3) of the Cr. P. C. The learned Counsel also contends that though there has been delay in filing the revision petition the same has been properly explained. Hence, the learned Counsel prays for allowing the revision petition.

( 4 ) ON the contrary the learned Counsel for the respondents-wife and daughter strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned under the revision petition is legal and valid. The learned Sessions Judge was totally justified in passing the order impugned, particularly, in the light of the settled law in this regard. The learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions: (1) Swati Suresh Ubale v Suresh Laxman Ubale and Another ; (2) (1996)II DMC 309; (3) 1997 Cri. L. J. 4313; (4) Hyder Mi v Mustt Ragia Begum; (5) (2001)II DMC 387 (DB); (6) (2001)II DMC 554; (7) (2002)I DMC 283. Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in the said decision, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

( 5 ) THE Court has perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the contentions raised at the Bar.

( 6 ) AT the outset, it should be mentioned that there has been delay of 90 days in filing the revision petition and the revision petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay, particularly, contending that on account of ill-health and financial difficulties, he was unable to come to Bangalore and prefer the revision petition. This application is seriously opposed by the respondents.

( 7 ) BY settled principles of law, it is clear that the Court should have a liberal approach while considering the application of this nature. The court should not check the entry of the litigant at the threshold on the ground of technicalities and niceties of law.

( 8 ) FROM the material on record it is seen that a specific averment made in the affidavit to the effect that due to the financial difficulties of the petitioner, he was not able to file the petition in time and he was also not keeping well. The material on record also shows that the parties at issue have fighting the Us on merits from the inception. It may not be out of context, if it is mentioned, that on an earlier occasion also the litigation has reached this Court.

( 9 ) TAKING into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and settled law in this regard as stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for condoning the delay and accordingly, LA. No. I stands allowed and the delay in filing the petition is condoned.

( 10 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that the wife and daughter had filed petition under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for maintenance and after contest the Court has ordered for maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month for wife and Rs. 300/- per month to the daughter. The petition in cri. Miscell

Click Here to Read the rest of this document