Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1805 (HP)

Usha Dhiman v. Ajay Dhiman & Another

2019-11-29

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The petitioner, had, instituted a complaint, constituted, under, the provisions, of, Sections 18, 19, 20, and, Section 21, of, the Protection, of, Women, from, Domestic Violence Act, hence, against the respondent, (a) upon the afore complaint, the learned trial Magistrate concerned, made, an order, hence, directing Sh. Ajay Dhiman, to, provide accommodation, of, one room along with kitchen and toilet, in, the vicinity, of, Palampur, (b) and, also directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 800/- per mensem, as rent qua the aforesaid accommodation. 2. Both the respondent(s), and, the petitioner, becoming aggrieved from the afore verdict made, upon, Criminal Case No. 119-IV/2010, hence, instituted thereagainst separate criminal appeals, before, the learned Sessions Judge Kangra, and, both appeals were decided, under, a common verdict, made, on 28.2.2017, (i) and, therethrough, the verdict assailed therebefore, became modified, (ii) in as much, as, the pecuniary rental sums, as determined earlier, by the learned trial Magistrate concerned, became enhanced, from, Rs. 800/- per mensem to Rs. 1500/- per mensem. The petitioner Usha Dhiman, is yet, aggrieved therefrom, and, has strived, to cast, a challenge, against, the verdict of 28.2.2017, by hers instituting, a, time barred criminal revision petition, before this Court. 3. The criminal revision petition, is barred, by a period of one year one month and ten days, and, after completion, of, pleadings upon Cr.MP(M) No. 849 of 2018, this Court under orders, recorded on 5.4.2019, formulated the hereinafter extracted issue:- "Whether the delay in filing the revision petition has been sufficiently explained? The applicant, for, adducing her discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore formulated issue, hence stepped into the witness box, as AW-1, and, made testifications rather succoring, all, the averments carried in Cr.MP(M) No. 849 of 2018, and, her testimony, has, been meted corroboration, by the testimony, of, her father (AW-2) and, from the testimony, of, AW-3. The applicant, for, adducing her discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, the afore formulated issue, hence stepped into the witness box, as AW-1, and, made testifications rather succoring, all, the averments carried in Cr.MP(M) No. 849 of 2018, and, her testimony, has, been meted corroboration, by the testimony, of, her father (AW-2) and, from the testimony, of, AW-3. However, all the afore testification(s) rather underscore(s), vis-a-vis, all, echoings carried therein, hence unfolding qua, the, afore intimation, rather within time, being purveyed, by the validly engaged counsel, of, one Ushs Dhiman, vis-a-vis, the latter, and, appertaining, to, a verdict becoming pronounced, in Criminal Appeal No. 14-D/2012, (i) yet, despite the afore conjoint echoings, occurring, in the testifications, of, the applicant''s witnesses, rather the good, just, and, sufficient cause, hence estopping the applicant, to, motion this Court, within limitation, is, embodied, in, rather indigent circumstances, of, her father, to, bear the expenses, of, engaging, a, counsel, in, the H.P. High Court. However, a reading of the testification, occurring, in the examinationin-chief of AW-3, reveals qua his advising, the, petitioner to engage, the, services of a seasoned lawyer, for, assailing the verdict pronounced, by, the learned first Appellate Court concerned. However, the afore advise remains unadhered by the petitioner, and, hence she is estopped, from, contending, that for want, of, indigent circumstances, becoming beset upon her, she, hence became precluded to institute, within time, the instant petition before this Court, against, the apposite verdict, pronounced, by the learned first Appellate Court, (i) as, only, upon hers hence searching, for, a counsel, and, also the counsel concerned, upon, being disclosed, vis-a-vis, the applicant, becoming beset, with, indigent circumstances, may have, advised her to seek free legal aid, through, the aegis, of, the Legal Services Authority concerned. Significantly, hence, all the afore wants does reiteratedly, rather, absolutely blunt, all the, vigors, of, the afore purported good, just and sufficient cause, hence, besetting, the applicant, to hence approach this Court, within, the prescribed period of limitation, for, hence casting, an, apposite motion thereagainst. 4. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate good, just and sufficient cause, for, condoning, the, delay in the filing, of, the revision petition. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant application, hence, it is dismissed, and, the impugned verdict, is, affirmed, and, maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.