The court emphasizes the necessity for a liberal approach to condone delays, especially during pandemic conditions, while highlighting the importance of explaining each day of delay adequately.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI Crl.R.C(MD)No.1311 of 2023 and Crl.M.P(MD)No.16759 of 2023 Baskaselvan ... Petitioner Vs.

Amalajothi ... Respondent PRAYER : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District, dated 05.10.2023 and to set aside the same by allowing the revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balamurugapandi For Respondent : Mr.K.Ramanathan

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 05.10.2023 made in Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2023 in Unnumbered Criminal Revision Petition No. /2023 on the file of the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanthapuram and to set aside the same.

2.The brief facts of the case:

The respondent filed a case in M.C.No.4 of 2018 U/s.125 of the Cr.P.C.

before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai. seeking maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the petitioner. The case was allowed by the trial Court, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the respondent from the date of the petition by its order. dated 20.02.2020. The petitioner has preferred the criminal revision petition with a delay of 982 days. So, along with the criminal revision petition, he filed the petition in Crl.M.P.No.583 of 2023 before the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanahapuram, to condone the delay of 982 days. After hearing both side, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram dismissed the said delay condonation petition by order, dated 05.10.2023. Challenging the order of dismissal, the revision petitioner has preferred this present Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has denied the very relationship of the respondent as she is not his wife. The order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance was passed on 20.02.2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic period and the national lockdown was announced. The petitioner moved with a criminal revision petition only after withdrawal of lockdown. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, has not considered the nationwide lockdown and after excluding the pandemic period, there is only 182 days delay. It is settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts that while considering the delay condonation petition, there must be a liberal approach and each case has to be disposed of on merits after hearing both. The petitioner has a good case in the maintenance case.

Therefore, the Criminal Revision Case may be allowed.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent filed the maintenance case in the year 2018 as she was not maintained by the petitioner as a dutiful husband. The petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter, later has not contested the case. The trial Court has granted granted sufficient opportunity for hearing the petitioner, but he was not ready to conduct the case and so after perusing material records, the trial Court passed the order on 20.02.2020, directing the petitioner to pay the maintenance to the respondent. As the petitioner has not paid the maintenance amount, the respondent has filed three petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.3744, 3745 and 3746 of 2024 U/s.128 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvadanai and the same are pending. To escape from the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed the criminal revision case after the lapse o