CRR(F)-1061 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Tajinder Singh Jaskaran Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - NAMIT KUMAR, J. 1. Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of has preferred 16.08.2023, Jalandhar, maintenance of Rs.2,00 from the date of filing of 2. marriage between the petitioner and mother of the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 23.08.20 litigations were withdrawn by the petitioner and respondent. Respondent through Section 125 Cr.P.C. the pendency of the said petition 1061 of 2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR(F)-1061 Date of decision Tajinder Singh Versus Jaskaran Singh CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAMIT KUMAR, J. Accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of has preferred the present revision petition challenging the , passed by learned Principal Judge, vide which petitioner has been directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the from the date of filing of the application. Respondent is the minor son of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and mother of the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 23.08.20 litigations were withdrawn by the petitioner and respondent. Respondent through his mother filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner. During the pendency of the said petition, respondent filed 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1061 of 2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.09.2025 ......Petitioner ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR , Advocate, ccompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 617 days, petitioner he present revision petition challenging the order dated passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide which petitioner has been directed to pay interim per month to the respondent (minor son) Respondent is the minor son of the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and mother of the respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 23.08.2018 and all the matrimonial litigations were withdrawn by the petitioner and the mother of the mother filed a petition under maintenance from the petitioner. During respondent filed an application RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1061 seeking interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/ the petitioner. The Family Court vide order dated considering all the facts and circumstance pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/ 3. of instant petition after an inordinate delay of that the petitioner earn his livelihood and maintain his wife and two minor daughters out of his second marriage totally frivolous purpose of the statute of limitation remedy, so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained, which is lac provision is not complied with and satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. limitation may cause hardship or inconvenience but the Court has no choice but to enforce it mandate. The legal maxim hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. 4. decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1061 of 2025 (O&M) seeking interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/ the petitioner. The Family Court vide order dated considering all the facts and circumstance pay interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month to the respondent. The applicant-petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition after an inordinate delay of that the petitioner is a taxi driver and is required to travel extensively to livelihood and maintain his wife and two minor daughters out of his second marriage. The plea taken by the applicant totally frivolous and does not have a leg to stand purpose of the statute of limitation is to fix the life so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be explained, which is lacking in the case at hand. When provision is not complied with and the satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned on sympathetic grounds alone. The statutory provision of may cause hardship or inconvenience ourt has no choice but to enforce it . The legal maxim dura lex sed lex hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It would be apposite, at this stage, even to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2 seeking interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per month from the petitioner. The Family Court vide order dated 16.08.2023 considering all the facts and circumstances, directed the petitioner to per month to the respondent. petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition after an inordinate delay of 617 days, on the ground is a taxi driver and is required to travel extensively to livelihood and maintain his wife and two minor daughters out The plea taken by the applicant-petitioner is and does not have a leg to stand. The object and is to fix the life span of a legal so as to put an end to every legal remedy as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Furthermore, it is also settled proposition of law that delay of each and every day has to be king in the case at hand. When a mandatory the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to be condoned The statutory provision of the law of may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party, ourt has no choice but to enforce it, giving full effect to its dura lex sed lex, which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It would be apposite, at this stage, even to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K. Ramchandran Vs. RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1061 State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 Supre it was concluded that particular party the statute and the Courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable gro Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 observed that Act is not with founded on public policy. It had been further observed that length of the delay is only criterion. Sometimes uncondonable due to a want of a certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. However, as demonstrated hereinabove, the grounds set out in the constitute sufficient c unexplained delay of always yearn and endeavour to decide the owing to its negligence, inaction, willful and deliberate default, deprives itself of such indulgence. 5. explanation given by the petitioner for not approaching this Court by way of the plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire the confidence of 1061 of 2025 (O&M) State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 Supre it was concluded that the law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party, but it has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by statute and the Courts have no power to extend limitation on equitable grounds. Likewise, even in Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 observed that the object of fixing the time limit under the Limitation Act is not with the purpose to destroy the right founded on public policy. It had been further observed that length of delay is immaterial, acceptability of the explanation only criterion. Sometimes a delay of even the shortest uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. However, as demonstrated hereinabove, the grounds set out in the constitute sufficient cause to condone the gross, inordinate and unexplained delay of 617 days. Needless to assert that Courts of law always yearn and endeavour to decide the owing to its negligence, inaction, willful and deliberate default, s itself of such indulgence. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance explanation given by the petitioner for not approaching this Court by the instant petition within the period of limitation is neither plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire the confidence of 3 State of Kerala and another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2276, wherein law of limitation may harshly affect a but it has to be applied with all its rigor prescribed by statute and the Courts have no power to extend the period of unds. Likewise, even in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Supreme Court had object of fixing the time limit under the Limitation rights of the parties, but it is founded on public policy. It had been further observed that length of , acceptability of the explanation offered is the the shortest duration may be cceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. However, as demonstrated hereinabove, the grounds set out in the present application do not ause to condone the gross, inordinate and days. Needless to assert that Courts of law always yearn and endeavour to decide the lis on merits, unless a party owing to its negligence, inaction, willful and deliberate default, In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the explanation given by the petitioner for not approaching this Court by instant petition within the period of limitation is neither plausible nor convincing and thus, does not inspire the confidence of RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1061 this Court to condone the delay of timely track and time does not wait nor does the law be who is seeking relief is to defend each day’s delay. 6. maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriag same time, a just provision does not degenerate into a weapon The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative in 125 Cr.P.C in its true spirit, social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The Section 125 and protect within the constitutional sweep of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. 7. threshold, the instant revision petition is barred by limitation and besides this, the petitioner who is legal and statutory liability to maintain his own son has rightly observed that in the judgmen marriage of the petitioner and mother of the respondent has been dissolved, there is no mention as to how much amount has been settled on account of maintenance for the respondent. T 1061 of 2025 (O&M) this Court to condone the delay of 617 days. timely track and time does not wait nor does the law be who is seeking relief is to defend each day’s delay. Even otherwise, the object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriag same time, a just and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while being alive to the legislative intent behind the provision under Section P.C in its true spirit, which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The 125 Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice and protect dependent women, children and parents, which also fall within the constitutional sweep of Article of the Constitution of India. In view of the above settled proposition of law, at the threshold, the instant revision petition is barred by limitation and besides this, the petitioner who is father of the respondent legal and statutory liability to maintain his own son has rightly observed that in the judgment dated 23.08.20 marriage of the petitioner and mother of the respondent has been dissolved, there is no mention as to how much amount has been settled on account of maintenance for the respondent. T 4 days. Because justice walks on timely track and time does not wait nor does the law bends. So one who is seeking relief is to defend each day’s delay. he object and purpose behind granting maintenance is to ensure that the dependent spouse/child is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of failure of marriage. At the and careful balance must be struck to ensure that this provision does not degenerate into a weapon to punish the other party. The Courts are required to conduct the maintenance proceedings while tent behind the provision under Section which is to provide speedy assistance and social justice to women, children and infirm parents. The provisions of Cr.P.C. were enacted as a measure to further social justice dependent women, children and parents, which also fall 15(3) reinforced by Article In view of the above settled proposition of law, at the very threshold, the instant revision petition is barred by limitation and father of the respondent (minor) has legal and statutory liability to maintain his own son as the Family Court t dated 23.08.2018, whereby marriage of the petitioner and mother of the respondent has been dissolved, there is no mention as to how much amount has been settled on account of maintenance for the respondent. Therefore, this Court is RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR(F)-1061 of the considered opi interfere with the impugned order dated Principal Judge, Family Court, 8. ground of delay 23.09.2025 R.S. 1061 of 2025 (O&M) of the considered opinion that there is no irregularity and any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalandhar. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 5 nion that there is no irregularity and any ground to 16.08.2023, passed by learned Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed on the (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2025.09.30 16:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document