HARINDER PAL @ HARVINDER PAL Vs. RAJ RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Rs. 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 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.