Introduction

Condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1963

The Limitation Act, 1963
The Limitation Act of 1963 is legislation which specifies the time period within which a suit is instituted,
and enumerates provisions in case the suit is not filed within the period prescribed by Act. The Act
extinguishes the remedy to the party and not t he right to file delayed documents in Court. Section
2(j) defines “period of limitation” as the time prescribed by the Schedule to institute any suit, appeal or
application, and “prescribed period” as the period of limitation determined as per the provisions of the
Act .
Period as prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Ac t
The period has been prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Act. Generally, it is as follows:

• 3 years time-period for a suit relating to accounts, contracts, suits relating to movable
property, recovery of a lawsuit under a contract, etc.
• 12 years time-period for suits relating to possession of the immovable property, and 30
years time-period for suits relating to the mortgaged property.
• One year for suit relating to torts (3 years for compensation in certain cases). 30 to 90 days
in case of appeals under the Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure Code.

Meaning of C ondonati on

The term Condonation means that the offence (of ignoring the law of period as prescribed by the Act)
is impliedly disregarded and the matter shall process as if no offence has been committed.

The D octrine of C ondonati on of D ela y

Condonation of Delay finds its mention in Section 5 of the Act which elaborates upon Extension of
prescribed period in certain cases. According to it, any appeal or application may be admitted after the
prescribed period if the applicant/appellant is able to satisfy the Court that they had “sufficient cause”
for not instituting the appeal/application in the prescribed period.

What is “Sufficient C ause” ?

The term “sufficient cause” isn’t defined explicitly and varies on a case-to-case basis. The Court has a
wide discretion in determining what constitutes as sufficient cause, depending upon the facts and
circumstances of each case.

Type of Jurisdiction The Court has the discretion to condone the delay and admit the appeal. The Court has
discretionary jurisdiction and even though sufficient cause has been shown, the party is not entitled to the
condonation of delay as the same is left to the Court’s discr etion.

Exceptions to Condonation of Delay – Section 5 There are certain exceptions relating to the ambit of the
doctrine of condonation of delay (Section 5):
 • The doctrine does not include “suit” and only covers appeals and applications.

• Other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The doctrine covers all appeals and applications. (Execution of decrees and orders)

Rule 3A Rule 3A has been inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976. According to it, an application must be filed
in case an appeal is presented after the expiry of the prescribed period. The application has to state sufficient
cause for causing a delay in filing an appeal.

General Principles of the Condonation of delay

The Supreme Court, in the case of Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji prescribed certain principles which
need to be followed while administering the doctrine of condonation of delay:

• Ordinarily, the litigant doesn’t stand to benefit by instituting an appeal late.

• If the Court is refusing to condone the delay, it can result in a meritorious matter being discarded
and the roots of justice being defeated. However, when a delay is condoned, the highest that can
happen is that the case will be decided on merits, i.e. a decision based on evidence rather than on
the technical and procedural ground.
• Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean the doctrine is to be applied in an irrational
manner. It must be applied in a sensible manner and not a literal one.
• Between substantial justice and technical considerations, the former deserves to be preferred for
the other side cannot claim that injustice is done because of a bona fide delay.
• There is no presumption that delay is caused deliberately. The litigant has nothing to gain by
resorting to delay and runs a serious risk.

Instances where condonation can be granted

The following are the instances where condonation can be granted:

• Subsequent changes in the law.

• Illness of the party: It includes the nature and severity of disease and facts encompassing the failure
to act.
• Imprisonment of the party: However, mere detainment is not sufficient to cause. Varies on a case-
to-case basis.
• Party is a pardanashin woman.
• Party belongs to a minority group with insufficient funds.
• Poverty or paupers.
• Party is a government servant: A government servant may not have an incentive in fulfilling the
task. Therefore, a certain latitude is permissible in such a case.
• Delay due to the pendency of the writ petition.
• Party is illiterate.
• Other adequate grounds: Mistake of Court, Mistake of Counsel, Delay in getting copies, mislead by
rulings, etc.
Section 125 Crpc

Introduction
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one of the most invoked and discussed provisions of the code.
This code provides that any person who has sufficient means to maintain himself cannot deny the
maintenance to the wife, children, and parents if they are not able to maintain themselves.

Scope :

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for the maintenance to the wife, child, and parents. The
court after the party has invoked Section 125 of the Code, may order the respondent, that is the husband, to
maintain the wife who is unable to maintain herself by providing monthly maintenance to her. However, there
is an exception in the provision. For the purpose of providing maintenance to the wife, the husband has to be
sufficient enough to support his wife after the separation and at the same time, the wife must not be living in
adultery or living separately with her husband without any sufficient reasons. Even if they are living separately
in mutual consent, then also the wife will not be entitled to any sort of maintenance .

Interim Maintenance ( 2 nd PROVISO TO SUB SEC 1 OF SEC 125 CRPC) )

Under Section 125 of the code, the provision is available for interim maintenance which means that during the
pendency of an application in the court of law, the order may be passed by the magistrate directing the
husband to pay the monthly allowances to the wife. However, the magistrate has the right to alter the amount
of the maintenance to be paid, if he thinks that there is a change in the circumstances of the individual who
has been paying or either receiving the monthly allowances.

Purpose of Section 125 CrPC

1. The intent behind Section 125 of the CrPC is to protect dependents who are unable to support
themselves from starvation, misery, and vagrancy. It is social justice legislation that was specifically
passed to safeguard women, children, and elderly parents.
2. The main goal of Section 125 of the CrPC of 1973 is to support abandoned and impoverished
wives, neglected and abandoned children, and vulnerable, elderly, and disabled parents. As a
result, this provision promotes social welfare and social service. The Magistrate’s authority is
primarily preventative in character rather than penal or punitive.
3. The time-consuming, troublesome, heavy, process of civil law and litigation was sought to be
avoided by providing a simple, quick, limited relief. This is because compulsion is (to some extent)
imposed upon those persons whose duty it is to support their dependents who are unable to
support themselves.
4. No wife, child, or parent should be abandoned on the scrap heap of society to beg or to lure
others to commit crimes against them or to commit crimes themselves. A contract that violates
this responsibility and totally waives the right to support one’s own wife and young children
cannot be regarded as legal.

Features of Section 125 CrPC

Previously, while discussing legal terms that have been used in making up Section 125, some of the features
that will be discussed below have already been referred to. Readers will therefore now be able to understand
the features of the maintenance provision better. Section 125 of the CrPC is designed with the following
features:
Need for sufficient means for maintenance

The most important requirement is that a person cannot be ordered to pay maintenance to another person
unless they themselves have ‘adequate resources to support’ the person who has the claim and neglects or
refuses to do so. The person asserting that he lacks sufficient means to sustain has the burden of evidence.
The fact that he is unemployed does not excuse him from the requirement. In the instance of Hardev Singh v.
State (1974), the Apex Court held that if a person cannot pay such maintenance allowance because he is a
monk, then it is his obligation to cast off the yellow robe and labour. The high courts have been tougher in
their interpretation. The social justice component and the protection of the society’s weaker members,
namely, women, children, and the elderly, are cited as the causes of this interpretation .

Neglect and refusal to be maintained

The term ‘neglect’ fundamentally refers to a disregard of responsibility that may be either unintentional or
purposeful and is used to refer to a failure to maintain even when no such demand is made against the
maintainer. Whereas, the ‘refusal’ to maintain occurs when there is a clearly stated purpose to not carry out
his responsibility. This intention may be expressed or even suggested by the husband’s behaviour. The
claimant has the onus of establishing this. The requirement that the wife lives with her husband is initially
necessary for her to be able to claim maintenance, but if the Magistrate finds that she has a valid reason for
doing so for instance, if her husband has taken in a new wife and if it is ritually permitted by their personal law,
the condition may be removed from her claim.

Quantum of maintenance

Up until the Amendment Act No. 50 of 2001, the magistrate was obligated to grant maintenance not to exceed
Rs. 500. There isn’t a cap on the maximum amount, instead, the Magistrate is free to decide the monthly rate
in accordance with the circumstances of the case. The rate can occasionally be changed in accordance with
Section 127, but it must be fixed, predictable, and not gradually growing. If both the wife and the child are
suing the same individual, it is against the law to pay them both jointly, instead, each has a distinct claim that
can be paid separately.

Claimant of maintenance under Section 125 must be unable to maintain himself/herself

The incapacity of a woman to support herself is one of the requirements for claiming maintenance. She need
not expressly request that she be allowed to care for herself. However, the Karnataka High Court ruled in the
case of Adbulmuaf v. Salima (1978) that if the woman is healthy, educated, and still unable to support herself,
she may still request maintenance, but the amount awarded to her will depend on these circumstances .

Scope of revision under Section 125 CrPC

Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, when the proceedings are conducted against the
husbands, the court tends to decide the quantum of the maintenance, which has to be paid to the wife after
considering the circumstances of the case. Although the maintenance declared by the court would satisfy the
petitioners, what if the husband is not satisfied with the order of the court. As appeal under Section 125 of the
court is not maintainable, the legal option which is available with the husband is to go for the revision
proceedings.

The Shah Bano case is a significant legal case in India that centered around the issue of maintenance under
Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its applicability to Muslim women. Here's a brief
analysis of the case with facts and the key legal holdings:

Facts:
 • Shah Bano, a 62-year-old Muslim woman, was married to Mohammed Ahmed Khan.
• After 43 years of marriage, Khan pronounced "triple talaq" (divorce) to Shah Bano in 1978, which led
to the termination of their marriage.
• Shah Bano, left without any means of support, filed a petition under Section 125 of the CrPC, seeking
maintenance from her ex-husband, Khan.
• The trial court granted her maintenance of Rs. 179 per month.
• Khan challenged the decision, arguing that Section 125 of the CrPC didn't apply to him as he was
governed by the Muslim Personal Law and that he had already fulfilled his obligations under Islamic
law by paying the "iddat" (post-divorce financial support).

Key Legal Holdings:

• The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment in 1985, held that Section 125 of the CrPC is applicable to
all Indian citizens, regardless of their religion. The Court emphasized the importance of a uniform,
gender-just interpretation of the law to protect the rights of women from all communities.
• The Court noted that the Muslim Personal Law, which governed matters of maintenance for Muslims,
could not supersede the provisions of the CrPC, which were applicable to all Indian citizens.
• The judgment reaffirmed the principle of gender justice and equality, ensuring that Muslim women
could claim maintenance from their husbands in cases of destitution, just like women from other
religious communities.
• The Court's decision generated considerable debate and controversy and led to calls for reforms in
personal laws to address issues related to the maintenance and divorce rights of Muslim women.
• In response to the controversy, the Indian government passed the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which sought to restrict the rights of Muslim women to claim
maintenance under certain conditions.

In summary, the Shah Bano case had a profound impact on Indian jurisprudence by affirming the applicability
of Section 125 of the CrPC to Muslim women, ensuring their right to seek maintenance in cases of divorce. It
ignited debates about the intersection of personal laws, gender equality, and constitutional principles in India,
ultimately leading to legislative changes aimed at addressing the issues raised by the case .