CRR No.3282 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.3282 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:-18.2.2013 Harinder Pal @ Harvinder Pal ...Petitioner Versus Raj Rani ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rishi Pal Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Malik, Advocate for the respondent. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral) The conspectus of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially Raj Rani (respondent-wife) has instituted a complaint against her husband petitioner Harinder Pal alias Harvinder Pal under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”.). The trial Court granted the interim maintenance of ` 2500/- per month and shared household in the government accommodation to her, in which, he (petitioner) is living, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure P1).
2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband has filed the time barred appeal along with an application for condonation of delay of 16 months u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appellate Court did not CRR No.3282 of 2011 (O&M) 2 condone the delay and dismissed the application, by way of impugned order dated 27.9.2011 (Annexure P2).
3. The petitioner-husband still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned orders (Annexures P1 & P2), invoking the provisions of Section 401 Cr.PC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
5. As is evident from the record that the trial Court has granted interim maintenance and shared household to the respondent-wife, by means of impugned order dated 23.5.2009 (Annexure P1), whereas petitioner-husband has filed the appeal (Annexure P3) on 7.9.2010, after a lapse of 16 months. The main ground pleaded in the application for condonation of delay was that petitioner-husband is an illiterate person. The pointed assertion is totally belied by the fact that he is an educated person and is working as ALM in UHBVNL. No other reason has been alleged by him in the application for condonation of delay.
6. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner- husband has failed to plead and prove the sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate and unexplained delay of 16 months in filing the appeal, the appellate Court has dismissed the application as well as appeal, vide impugned order (Annexure P2), which, in substance, is as under (para 6):- “In the instant (Sic. appeal) the averments given in the application as well as affidavit are wrong and no truth can be found in any of the averments. Thus, the delay cannot be condoned in filing the appeal because the appellant CRR No.3282 of 2011 (O&M) 3 has failed to show any sufficient cause within the ambit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Moreover, ignorance of law or illiteracy is no ground especially when the applicant/appellant is an educated person. Therefore, the application for condoning the delay of 16 months in filing the Appeal being without merit is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal in hand is also dismissed being barred by limitation. Both parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 4.10.2011. Trial Court record along with copy of this order be sent back and file after due compliance be consigned to record room.”
7. The learned counsel for petitioner-husband did not point out any material/ground, muchless cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned order (Annexure P2). Meaning thereby, the appellate Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned orders, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same are illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner-husband, so, the impugned orders deserve to be and are hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. 18.2.2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge