The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a bona fide explanation for delay in filing a revision, as interpreted under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

(Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 135146 of 2016)

1. This revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No. 39 of 2014, by which application of revisionist filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. was rejected, which was preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 01.01.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No. 102 of 2013, Smt. Meera Devi Vs. Laxman Prasad, whereby the court below has allowed the application undr Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of wife (opposite party No. 2 herein) and directed the revisionist to pay maintenance allowance to his wife at the rate of Rs. 5,000/-per month from the date of application and remaining balance amount be paid in four equal installments in every three months within a period of one year.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. This revision is barred by limitation and has been filed with a delay of 756 days.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is husband and his wife-opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur vide its order dated 01.01.2014 and awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/-per month from the date of application i.e. 28.07.2006. Against the said order the revisionist filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which was rejected by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur on 21.10.2015. He further submits that the revisionist reached Allahabad on 24.03.2016 and thereafter, again went back to Mirzapur for taking some relevant papers and finally came to Allahabad on 11.04.2016 and after preparing this revision, filed the same along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. The explanation given in affidavit accompanying delay condonation application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 is neither acceptable nor trustworthy.

6. The expression “sufficient cause” in Section 5 of Act, 1963 has been held to receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally a delay in preferring appeal may be condoned in interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay. In Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, 1987(2) SCC 107, the Court said, that, when substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

7. In P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1998 SC 2276 the Court said:

“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

8. The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties. They virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights. They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts.

So a life span must be fi