The court prioritized substantive justice over procedural technicalities, allowing a delay in filing an appeal due to justifiable health concerns.

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.531 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.1090 of 2024 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition seeking condonation of a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal, stating that the delay occurred due to the ill health of the petitioner. It was also submitted that the date for pronouncement of the order was fixed as 10.07.2024, and they waited until the evening for the order, but it was not pronounced. Hence, the delay was unintentional, and the petitioner requested the Court to condone the same. However, the trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, holding that the order was, in fact, passed on 10.07.2024 and is available on record. Therefore, it found no merit in the petition and dismissed it. Aggrieved thereby, the present criminal revision case is filed.

3. Heard Sri V. Vishwanatham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Smt. Sunitha Akula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State and Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay of 66 days in filing the appeal was neither willful nor deliberate but occurred due to the petitioner’s ill health and the genuine belief of the counsel that the detailed order had not been pronounced on 10.07.2024, as it was only made available on 30.09.2024. He further contended that the learned Appellate Judge erred in dismissing the condone delay petition without assigning proper reasons and failed to consider that the delay was supported by justifiable grounds. He further submitted that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate granting interim custody of the children to the respondent-husband is contrary to Section 21 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is intended to protect the rights of the aggrieved woman. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court by allowing this criminal revision case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner has filed the appeal without complying with the orders passed by the trial Court. He further submitted that after filing the DVC and another case, the respondent–father was not allowed to meet his children. He contended that there are no valid grounds to allow the present petition and no sufficient reasons have been shown for the delay. Therefore, he prayed that the Court dismiss the criminal revision case.

6. In the light of the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon a thorough perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the petitioner filed a petition before the trial Court seeking condonation of a delay of 66 days in filing the appeal. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that no sufficient cause was shown for the delay and further observed that there was misrepresentation regarding the pronouncement of the order dated 10.07.2024, specifically, that although the docket mentions the order was passed on that date, the petitioner claimed it was not pronounced. The petitioner also contended that she was suffering from health issues, which led to the delay. Furthermore, one of the grounds urged is that the impugned order granting interim custody of the children to the respondent is contrary to Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 , which provides that temporary custody of the child may be granted to the aggrieved person or a person applying on her behalf, a