CHAND GUPTA Vs. ADARSH PAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. 3714-CII/1985 for condonation of delay is allowed. This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Bhatinda, dated 24th April, 1985, whereby maintenance pendente-lite @ Rs. 400/- p.m. was allowed to the wife-petitioner u/s. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short, the Act).

(2.) Admittedly, a daughter was born out of the wedlock. Application u/s. 24 of the Act was filed on behalf of both the wife and the daughter. No amount of maintenance has been fixed for the minor daughter.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife, the amount of Rs. 400 allowed as maintenance pendente lite was insufficient, particularly keeping in view the income of the husband-respondent. In any case, argued the learned counsel, the minor daughter who was admittedly living with the petified copy of this order of the District Judge would show that it was prepared on May 13, 1985. There is no explanation forthcoming in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to account for the delay in the filing of this revision petition after the copy of the order of the District Judge was ready. All that was said there was that the delay had been caused due to the wrong understanding and interpretation of law. It is well settled that in such cases each day's delay has to be accounted for. No vague excuses can be accepted to cover upon what so obviously looks to be an inordinate delay in filing of the revision petition.