PAWAN KUMAR Vs. MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. B.D.Jha, Advocate, present for the applicant.

(2.) The applicant before this Court has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and moved this application. Learned counsel for the applicant-Mr.B.D.Jha pleads that on an application moved by respondent-Smt. Meenakshi, who is the wife of the present applicant, under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court concerned had granted interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousands only) per month in favour of wife/respondent vide order dated 24.05.2014.

(3.) The matter under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is still under consideration before the Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. The order sheet has already been annexed by the applicant in the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which reveals that even after the interim maintenance was granted by the court concerned on 24.05.2014, the applicant has not paid the interim maintenance to the wife/respondent. Although, the case was listed about 16 dates before the concerned Magistrate. Subsequently, the applicant ultimately moved an appeal before the appellate court as provided under Section 29 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Since it was a belated appeal, it was accompanied by delay condonation application. The grounds for condonation of delay made by the present applicant were that applicant had no knowledge of the order passed by the trial court and previous counsel did not inform about the ex-parte order passed by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter the applicant was constrained to change the counsel and on advice of the new counsel he preferred the appeal before the appellate court. This can never be the ground for condonation of delay, inasmuch as, these grounds are entertained by the court, which will give rise to endless litigation. Therefore, a pragmatic approach has also to be adopted by the court while hearing the application for condonation of delay. Indeed it is true that by and large liberal approach must be adopted while condoning the delay, as is the law laid down in matter of Esha Bhattacharjee V. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, 2013 12 SCC 649 and in many other matters, but at the same time the conduct of the litigant is also to be seen. Moreover the present matter is still under consideration before the court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.