The petitioner had filed Crl. Misc. No.20/2012 by invoking the provisions of PWDV Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’). The JMFC II at Belgaum, allowed the petition in part and directed the respondent No.2 herein i.e., husband of the petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/p.m. and Rs.25,000/as compensation and damages to the petitioner. The reliefs sought against the other respondents was rejected.

2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under S.29 of the Act. There being delay of 78 days, I.A.1 was filed under S.5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. Statement of objections having been filed by respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner got herself examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 and P2. No rebuttal evidence was placed on record by respondents 2 to 4. The Sessions Judge having dismissed I.A.1 and also the appeal vide order dated 17.03.2015, this Revision Petition was filed.

3. The petitioner pleaded in the Court below that the delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and bona fide. It was stated that her father developed coronary artery decease and was admitted at military hospital at Pune and was there till 11.08.2014 and thereafter, he underwent followup treatment till first week of November, 2014. It was submitted that she took care of her father and hence could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. Despite the respondents’ failure to how that there was any mala fides or the appellant / petitioner having gained out of the delay, the Sessions Judge by adopting a pedantic approach and by merely reproducing the evidence and without appreciation of the case, refused to condone the delay.

4. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. Points for consideration are:

(i) whether the impugned order is perverse?

(ii) Whether sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay infiling the appeal before the Court below?

5. S.5 of the Limitation Act envisages the explanation of delay to the satisfaction of the Court. Discretion has been conferred upon Courts to excuse the delay particularly when a meritorious case is brought before the Court and mala fides on the part of the applicant in filing the appeal belatedly is not made out. ‘Sufficient cause’ used in S.5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to enable Court to apply the law in a manner which subserves ends of justice and that liberal approach should be adopted in condonation of short duration which becomes clear from the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court vide COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG Vs. MST.KATIJI (1987) 2 SCC 107; N. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. M.KRISHNAMURTHY (1998) 7 SCC 123 And VEDABAI Vs. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL (2001) 9 SCC 106; G. RAMEGOWDA (MAJOR) Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, (1988) 2 SCC 142.

6. The petitioner’s father having suffered heart attack and taken treatment as an inpatient vide Exs.P1 and P2 and the petitioner having taken care of him and the delay being only 78 days, a liberal view should have been taken.

7. In RAM NATH SAO Vs. GOBARDHAN SAO, (2002) 3 SCC 195, Apex Court has held as follows:

“12. …….. But one thing is clear that the courts should not proceed with the tendency of finding fault with the cause shown and reject the petition by a slipshod order in overjubilation of disposal drive. Acceptance of explanation furnished should be the rule and refusal, an exception, more so when no negligence or inaction or want of bona fides can be imputed to the defaulting party. On the other hand, while considering the matter the courts should not lose sight of the fact that by not taking steps within the time prescribed a valuable right has accrued to the other party which should not be lightly defeated by condoning delay in a routinelike manner. However, by taking a pedantic and hypertechnical view of the matter the explanation furnished should not be rejected when stakes are high and/or arguable points of facts and law are involved in the case, causi