JUDGMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to an order dated 23.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal being Criminal Appeal No.135/2020 filed by the Petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’), on ground of delay.

2. Facts to the extent necessary and relevant are that marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent was solemnized on 25.11.2007, according to Hindu rites and customs and a daughter was born out of the wedlock on 28.04.2010. The child was diagnosed as an autistic speechless child with 75% disability and IQ 37. On account of differences and disputes between the parties, Petitioner left the matrimonial home on 30.01.2016 and came to Delhi to live with her parents along with her minor daughter.

3. On 01.10.2016, as per the averments in the petition, an application was filed by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act being Complaint Case No.48726/2016 with an affidavit under Section 23(2) of the DV Act, seeking interim relief. Petitioner filed her affidavit of assets, income and expenditure on 17.02.2017, which according to her reflects that she does not have any source of income preceding 3 years and she was dependent on her parents. Respondent filed his reply on 24.04.2017 along with affidavit of income and expenditure with ITRs for Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. Subsequently, Petitioner also filed an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking production of documents from the Respondent such as cashbook, balance sheets, salary slips, etc. Without disposing the said application, by the impugned order dated 21.06.2019, learned Trial Court disposed of the interim maintenance application directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.66,000/- per month to the Petitioner for her and for the maintenance of the daughter.

4. The order granting interim maintenance was challenged by the Petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act being Criminal Appeal No.135/2020, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 23.11.2020 on ground of delay, without going into merits of the case. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. 5. As per the averments in the petition, the appeal was filed along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 471 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In support of the application, Petitioner had pleaded that the amount of interim maintenance granted was not adequate to meet the medical expenses of her daughter who required constant therapy and treatment as she is a special child. Efforts were made to amicably resolve and settle the disputes before the Mediation Centre where the parties were directed to appear on 16.12.2019. However, the mediation failed as the Respondent was not willing to change his stand. Matter was being adjourned before the Trial Court from time to time for one reason or the other and thereafter, the functioning of the Court was impacted on account of COVID-19. On 19.10.2020, Petitioner learnt of some bank accounts of the Respondent and his parents from which it became clear that his correct income and financial resources were concealed from the Court. This led to the filing of the appeal for enhancement of the interim maintenance and the delay was for reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner.

6. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner on ground of delay without going into merits. The prime reason for not condoning the delay, as reflected from the order, was that the Petitioner did not intend to challenge the order dated 21.06.2019 at the initial stages and it was later that she took the decision to challenge the same after the period of limitation had expired. Learned Judge has observed that even if Petitioner has made out a su