Discretionary powers to condone delay require satisfactory explanations; gross negligence precludes such relief.

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Date : 03/11/2025 ORAL ORDER

1. The present application is filed seeking condonation of delay of

512 days caused in preferring the captioned revision application.

2. Learned advocate for the applicant has initially submitted that the applicant is not ready to deposit any amount towards arrears, citing his incapacity to deposit the amount in question.

3. Reverting to the facts of the case, it transpires that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Vadodara, passed an order dated 06.02.2025 in Criminal Misc. Application No.400 of 2022, partly allowing the application preferred by respondent Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . By the said order, the applicant–husband was directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/- and Rs.2,000/- per month towards the maintenance of respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, from the date of the application, along with consequential costs.

4. It further transpires that on default of payment of maintenance by the applicant, he was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for 230 days for non-payment of maintenance for 23 months.

5. The learned advocate for the applicant has sought condonation of delay on the grounds stated in paragraph No.3 of the present application. However, no cogent or satisfactory grounds have been made out to establish that the applicant was under reasonable circumstances justifying the delay in filing the present application within the prescribed period of limitation. The applicant’s continued reluctance to pay maintenance also reflects adversely on his conduct, disentitling him to the equitable relief prayed for. Hence, no sufficient cause is made out to enable this Court to exercise its discretion to condone the delay.

6. Having heard the learned advocate for the applicant, this court does not incline to entertain the present application considering the gross delay of 512 days has been caused in preferring the captioned revision application. The approach on the part of the applicant requires to be seen that after passing of the impugned order, nowhere the applicant has stated or contended that as to what kind of steps have been taken by the applicant to challenge the impugned order nor any sort of any material is even placed on record to show that delay was caused bona-fidely.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of K.B.Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) Versus Gyanendra Pratap And Others reported in 2024 (4) SCR 616, after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649, held followings:-

“10. There is no gainsaying the fact that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and it is not to be exercised in cases where there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant ( See Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao v. Reddy Sridevi and Others (2021) 18 SCC 384 ). The discretion is also not supposed to be exercised in the absence of any reasonable, satisfactory or appropriate explanation for the delay ( See P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Anr. , (1997) 7 SCC 556 ). Thus, it is apparent that the words sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act can only be given a liberal construction, when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fide is imputable to the litigant ( See Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. , (2013) 14 SCC 81 ). The principles which are to be kept in mind for condonation of delay were succinctly summarised by this Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of