Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
SUMEET GOEL
Raj Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Sapna – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)
CRM-19877-2024
The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-husband for condonation of 71 days delay in filing the accompanying revision petition. The main revision petition has been filed impugning the judgment dated 16.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ludhiana, whereby the applicant-husband/petitioner (herein), who was proceeded against ex-parte, was directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to respondent No.1-wife (herein), as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and it is further directed that respondent-wife should be entitled to get maintenance increased at a flat rate of 5% per annum from the date of passing of the order. However, no maintenance was granted to respondent No.2 (minor child) as he is being maintained by applicant-petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, while seeking grant of prayer for condonation of delay of 71 days, has argued that the delay has occurred as the applicant is a poor person and on account of p
A liberal approach to condonation of delay under Section 5 of The Limitation Act requires a reasonable explanation; negligence or lack of diligence by the applicant can lead to dismissal.
A reasonable explanation is essential for condoning delay under the Limitation Act, and mere health issues without sufficient detail do not suffice.
A liberal approach to condonation of delay under Section 5 of The Limitation Act requires a reasonable explanation; mere administrative delays are insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in condonation of delay, while also emphasizing the requirement for a genuine and acceptable explanation for the de....
Delay in filing civil revisions can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article