1. Rule. Learned APP, Ms.Moxa Thakkar and learned advocate, Mr.Vivek Bhamare waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively.

2. By filing this application, the applicant has prayed to condone delay of 734 days caused in filing Criminal Appeal (F) No.26188 of 2018 (now numbered as Criminal Appeal No.1317 of 2018) challenging order dated 13.6.2016 passed below Exh.75 in Criminal Misc. Application No.333 of 2013 by learned Family Court, Surat.

3. The respondent herein had filed an application seeking maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That being aggrieved by the amount of maintenance the respondent herein preferred a revision application before this Honourable Court, which is pending. It is stated that the appeal preferred by the applicant herein against the impugned order of the trial Court is only with regard to false and misleading statements made by the respondent on oath before the concerned trial Court at the time of deciding the application for maintenance. Since there is a delay of 734 days in preferring such appeal present application for condonation of delay is filed.

4. Mr.Bhadrish Raju, learned advocate for the applicant submits that since this is a family dispute, the applicant herein was trying to settle the dispute with the respondent herein. He further submitted that the applicant could not succeed in his efforts. Thereafter, the applicant herein filed Special Criminal Application No.449 of 2018, before this Court for quashing of the order, however, on 22.1.2018 the same was withdrawn in view of the fact that a statutory appeal under section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code is available against the order passed by the court below rejecting the application filed by the applicant Exh.43. At the time of withdrawal of such application, since this Court granted liberty to file appeal, present appeal is filed and in filing such appeal delay is caused due to aforesaid reasons. He further submitted that the applicant is working in a company and he is required to travel abroad, therefore also delay is caused in filing present appeal. He further submitted that the applicant is having a good case on merits and if the claim of the applicant is rejected on the ground of delay, it will cause irreversible loss and prejudice to the applicant. He further submitted that the words “sufficient cause” should be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Others reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132, wherein it held that sufficient cause should be construed with pragmatism in justice oriented manner. He has also relied upon the following decisions and prayed to allow present application.

(i) N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123

(ii) Hajara Gani Umar Shekh v. State of Gujarat and Another, Special Criminal Application No.2275 of 2007 decided on 14.5.2009 by this High Court.

(iii) Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya v. State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Application No.7666 of 2016 decided on 20.10.2016 by this High Court.

5. On the other hand, Mr.Vivek Bhamare, learned advocate for respondent no.2 has opposed present application. He submitted that the applicant has not shown sufficient cause for condoning delay caused in filing the appeal. He submitted that no talks of settlement were going on between the parties. He also submitted that the impugned order was passed on 13.6.2016, while Special Criminal Application No.449 of 2018 was filed in the year 2018. Therefore, there was delay even in filing the aforesaid Special Criminal Application. He submitted that the applicant is not paying maintenance to respondent no.2 and only as a delaying tactic present appeal filed by him. He also submitted that ignorance of law resulting in inaction on the part of the litigant is not a valid explanation for delay. He also submitted that the delay is i