MAN SINGH Vs. HARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision against the order dated 18.3.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Cr. Revision Petition No.13 -S/10 of 07.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that non -applicant/respondent had filed a revision before learned Sessions Judge, Shimla on 17.4.2007 and on 26.4.2007 learned Sessions Judge had issued notice to the applicant who could not be served for want of correct address. Thereafter fresh notice was issued to the applicant for 27.2.2008. The Process Server vide report dated 13.2.2008 reported that the notice of the applicant had been handed over to his nephew who undertook to hand over the same to the applicant. The nephew of the applicant never told the applicant that he had received any notice from the Process Server. Service on the applicant was not properly affected; the applicant was not served personally.

(3.) THE application was contested by non -applicant by filing reply, in which she has stated that an amount of Rs.2000/ - per month maintenance was granted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Shimla against which she had filed revision and the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision and increased the maintenance from Rs.2000/ - to Rs.5000/ - per month from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16.9.2005. The non -applicant had filed execution petition and till the filing of the reply in August, 2009 the arrears of maintenance have swelled to Rs.2,35,000/ - as against Rs.8000/ - paid by applicant during the pendency of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.3, Shimla. The applicant had paid Rs.20,000/ - in July/August , 2009 only when sale order was issued by learned Judicial Magistrate in the execution petition. The applicant has not given any sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision. The non -applicant has prayed for dismissal of the application.