IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-4736-2025 in/and CRR(F)-178-2025 Date of Decision: 05.02.2025 ****

Manish Rustagi ..... Petitioner Versus Tanvi Rustagi and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Pragyat Bhardwaj, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 332 days in filing of the revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submitted that there is a delay of 332 days in filing of the present revision petition in view of the fact that although an order was passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Camp Court, Pataudi, Gurugram on 06.12.2023 whereby an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month was directed to be paid for maintenance and education of respondent No.2, who is the son of the petitioner, but respondent No.1/wife did not supply the school details of the child and that is why he could not deposit the school fee of his child and that was the reason as to why there has been a delay in filing of the present revision petition. He further submitted that the aforesaid reason will constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the delay of 332 days in filing of the present revision petition may be condoned.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner.

4. The grounds which have been taken in the application for seeking condonation of delay are reproduced as under:-

“1. That the applicant-petitioner is filing the accompanying revision petition against order dated 06.12.2023, passed by the Ld. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pataudi, Gurugram, wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay an amount of Rs 30000 per month for maintenance and education of Respondents no.2 (i.e. the child).

2. That the contents of the revision petition may kindly be read as part and parcel of the instant application and the same are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity.

3. That during the pendency of the main petition, the learned Family Court directed the applicant-petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to the minor child i.e. respondent No.2. The applicant-petitioner being a law abiding citizen kept on paying the same regularly.

4. That a bare perusal of the record would reveal that the Respondents no.1(i.e. the wife) who is an independent woman getting a salary of Rs 60,000/- per month as of now the Respondents no. 1 despite knowing that the petitioner continues to pay for the fees of school of the minor child the Respondents no.2 has intentionally continued to conceal the details of the school of the minor child which shreds a doubt in the mind of the petitioner regarding the usage of the maintenance so provided by the petitioner keeping the petitioner ignorant of the actual status of his own child.

5. That it is apposite to mention that in view of the aforementioned circumstance regarding the details of the school of the minor child in order to transfer the amount so ordered by the Ld. Family Court the petitioner would rather transfer the said amount directly in the account of the school so far that aspect is concerned and continue to transfer the rest accordingly and contribute some part of the aforementioned amount in the form of fixed deposit recurring in nature for the future of his own child.

6. That it is in this background that when the petitioner came to know regarding misuse of the maintenance amount that necessity arose to file the instant petition and in this way, delay of 332 days occurred in filing the instant revision, which is not intentional in any manner.

7. That in view of the above, the applicant/petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 332 days in filing the accompanying revision petition.

8. That the present Application has been filed with utmost