Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 91 (UTT)

Yoginder Singh Chauhan v. Divya Chauhan

2024-02-19

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. Heard on Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of 2023. 2. The revisionist proposes to challenge the order dated 23.03.2022, passed in Criminal Case No.149 of 2019, Smt. Divya Chauhan and others Vs. Yoginder Singh Chauhan, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun (“the case”), by it, the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as an interim maintenance to the respondents (Rs.10,000/- each). 3. The revision is delayed by 480 days. In the delay condonation application the ground for delay has been given mainly in paras 8 to 12 of the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application. It is as follows:- “8. That the order, which is under challenge in the present criminal revision, was passed on 23-3-2022, ignoring the findings recorded in the judgement & decree dated 9-10-2019. 9. That section 125(4) Cr.P.C. contains a bar for not granting maintenance to a wife, who is not residing with her husband without any sufficient cause. The said bar also applies to interim maintenance. 10. That the revisionist was not advised by his local counsel that as per the bar contained under section 125(4) Cr.P.C. and the fact that none of the findings recorded in judgement & decree dated 9-10-2019 have been stayed; hence, the respondent no.1 was not entitled even to interim maintenance. 11. That as no proper legal advice was given to the revisionist by his local counsel, he could not file the criminal revision within the time stipulated for filing the criminal revision. 12. That it is humbly submitted that it is a well settled law that no one should be made to suffer on account of wrong advice or no advice by the counsel to a litigant.” 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that earlier the revisionist had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage bearing No.464 of 2017, in the court of the District Judge, Kapurthala (Punjab), which was decreed on the ground of cruelty of the respondent no.1. It is argued that this aspect was not raised and decided in the impugned order. 5. It is also argued that the learned counsel, who was representing the revisionist in the court below did not ever advise for challenging the impugned order. 6. It is well settled law that a litigant shall not allow to suffer for the mistake of his counsel. 5. It is also argued that the learned counsel, who was representing the revisionist in the court below did not ever advise for challenging the impugned order. 6. It is well settled law that a litigant shall not allow to suffer for the mistake of his counsel. But then, each case has its own facts. 7. What is being argued is an inaction on the part of learned counsel, who was representing the revisionist in the court below. It is not the case of wrong advise. The argument which has been advanced to substantiate the ground of delay has, in fact, no force. 8. In para 5 of the impugned order the assertion of the revisionist has been recorded that the revisionist had filed a suit which was decreed in his favour. It is not the case that the counsel, who was representing the revisionist did not raise the point, which is now being raised. 9. If the assertion that the delay occurred due to non-advise of the counsel to challenge the order is accepted, this plea may be advanced in each case, which may not be verified from any fact. 10. In fact, in the instant case, what is being argued is not supported with the material on record. The ground of dissolution of marriage, on the ground of cruelty was taken by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the court below. 11. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no reason for condoning delay in preferring the revision against the interim order, that too after the delay of 480 days. Sufficient cause has not been even shown by the revisionist for preferring the revision after a long delay of 480 days. The revisionist is Lieutenant Colonel in the Indian Army. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay condonation application deserves to be dismissed. 12. The delay condonation application is dismissed. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed.