The court will not exercise its discretion to condone an inordinate delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if the applicant fails to provide a bona fide, satisfactory explanation, as law of limitation must be applied with rigor to ensure finality of legal proceedings.

ORDER :

Shamim Ahmed, J.

1.This Crl.MP.No.1012 of 2026 is filed, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1714 days in preferring the Crl.RC.SR.No.102378 of 2025.

2.This Crl.RC.SR.No.102378 of 2025 is filed, under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the order, dated 28.01.2019, passed in MC.No.338 of 2018, by the VII Additional Family Court, Chennai.

3.The facts of the case, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of this Petition, are that the Revision Petitioner is the husband and the Respondent is the wife and they got married on 04.12.2016. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Revision Petitioner had filed HMOP.No.1625 of 2017 for divorce, which was dismissed for default on 13.11.2018 and the HMOP.No.1060 of 2019 filed by the Respondent, seeking restitution of conjugal rights was allowed on 17.06.2022. In the application in MC.No.338 of 2018 filed by the Respondent under Section 125 of Cr.PC, seeking maintenance, by the impugned order, the Trial Court had awarded a maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. to the Respondent. As against the same, the Revision Petitioner had preferred Crl.RC.SR.No.102378 of 2025, on 09.01.2026, along with the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 1714 days, in preferring the above Crl.RC.SR.No.102378 of 2025.

4.This Court heard Mr.M.Maharaja, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay of 1714 days in preferring the above Criminal Revision Case had occurred due to financial constraints, serious health ailments and medical treatment in Kerala and that he was not aware of the progress of the case in MC.No.338 of 2018 and that the said delay is neither deliberate nor willful and hence, the learned Counsel prays this Court to allow this Petition, by condoning the delay in preferring the Criminal Revision Case, in the interest of justice.

6.This Court has given its careful and anxious consideration to the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also perused the entire materials available on record.

7.The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 1714 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case.

8.The standard period of limitation for filing a Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is 90 days from the date of the impugned order, as stipulated under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the present case, the Criminal Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 1714 days. However, under Section 5 of the , the Court is empowered to condone the delay if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for not preferring the revision within the prescribed limitation period. The explanation offered must be reasonable, bona fide, and not indicative of negligence or inaction.

9.In the present case, the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning the delay are that the delay of 1714 days had occurred due to financial constraints, serious health ailments and medical treatment in Kerala and that he was not aware of the progress of the case in MC.No.338 of 2018 and that the said delay is neither deliberate nor willful.

10.After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a satisfactory explanation nor any valid reasons for condoning the inordinate delay of 1714 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case. Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is a time-barred one an