Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R. T. VACHHANI, J
SHAILESHBHAI KARMSHIBHAI KANJARIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prior action needs to be explained adequately. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. judicial discretion must consider timely appeals. (Para 3) |
| 3. absence of satisfactory explanation leads to application dismissal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. final decision made to dismiss the application. (Para 6) |
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application, the applicant has sought condonation of delay of 280 days in preferring the captioned application challenging the judgment and order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the Family Court, Halvad in Criminal Misc. Application No.18 of 2024, whereby the applicant was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.8000/- per month to the opponent–wife from the date of the application, along with costs, under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Reverting to the facts of the present case and the grounds urged by the applicant, it transpires from paragraphs 4 and 5 of the application that the impugned order was passed on 05.10.2024, whereas the applicant applied for a certified copy on 06.10.2025, i.e., after a delay of 12 months. The same was delivered to the applicant on 08.10.2025. There is no sufficient material on record to show what prevented the app
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
