The elastic nature of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay and the need to advance substantial justice were the central legal principles established in the judgment.

S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard Ld. Advocate Miss Bhavini H. Jani for the Applicant and Ld. Advocate Mr. Gaurav Chudasama for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, whereas Ld. A.P.P. Mr. K.P. Raval for Respondent No. 1 State, which is a formal party since dispute is between wife and her in-laws under Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner wants to challenge the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 112/2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bhavnagar. By such impugned judgment the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 and 3 herein is allowed and thereby the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2012 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar in Miscellaneous Application No. 963/2010 is quashed and set aside by allowing the appeal. Thereby the order of the Magistrate granting several reliefs under The Domestic Violence Act in the form of restraining the respondent from harassing the petitioner and to pay maintenance to the petitioner so also compensation has been quashed and set aside. It seems that the Sessions Court has considered that when the petitioner is widow, she is not entitled to reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.

3. However, at present we are not much concerned with the merits of the main revision but for filing such revision there is delay of 795 days and therefore, the petitioner filed this application for condonation of delay.

4. It is contended by the petitioner that being a widow and needy woman, she could not chase and cope-up with the time and that in absence of source of income, she could not file such revision in time because she was not properly advised by anyone. It is also contended that, under the advise received by her, initially she has preferred Special Civil Application No. 3154/2015 for challenging the impugned order in revision but since Criminal Revision is to be filed, such Special Civil Application was withdrawn and thereafter, she has preferred the present revision petition.

5. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have opposed the petition by filing the Affidavit-In-Reply. Ld. Advocate has also argued vehemently submitting that there is inordinate delay and that even after withdrawal of Special Civil Application from this court, revision is not filed at the earliest point of time. The reply is also containing averments on the merits of the revision application. However, at present we are not much concerned with the merits of the main revision except to consider that practically it is a debatable issue whether all the reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act can be refused only because the victim is widow or when she is not claiming any relief against her husband may be because he is died.

6. Otherwise also the perusal of the record makes it clear that there is sufficient cause for not filing the revision in prescribed period of limitation. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner is widow who has been harassed by her in-laws and in absence of financial support by way of the maintenance, it would be certainly difficult for her to chase the litigation and cope-up with the requirements of the time and therefore when sufficient cause is shown, there is no reason to deny to condone the delay.

7. In view of above facts and circumstances and as held in Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Amardeep Association & Ors. reported in (2013)2 GLR, 1399 when there is substance in the main revision application, irrespective of observation in any other judgments, delay needs to be condoned. For the purpose, at the cost of repetition, I would like to reproduce relevant paragraphs of judgment in the case of Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. v. Amardeep Association & Ors., which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 20.03.2013 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12142/13, which read as under:-

"To decide the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to consider that whether there is sufficient and reasonable cause for condonation of delay in filing any litiga