Madras High Court
K.Kumaresan @John vs J.Bharathi @ Beluah on 21 July, 2026
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.07.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 and
Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
K.Kumaresan @ John, S/o.Lt.Kesavan
40, Jegajeevanram Street, Anandapuram
East Tambaram, Chennai 600059 Petitioner-Crl.MP/
Revision Petitioner-Crl.RC.SR
Vs
1. J.Bharathi @ Beulah, W/o.K.Kumaresan @ John
2. Minor K.Chatherine, D/o.K.Kumaresan @ John
Both are residing at Old No.46, New No.12/1,
Jamalliya Nagar Road, Jamaliiya Nagar
Perambur, Chennai 60012 Respondents-Crl.MP/ Crl.RC.SR
Prayer:- This Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 is filed, under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2212 days in preferring the
Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026.
Prayer:- This Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026 is filed, under Sections 438 and
442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the
order, dated 26.03.2018, passed in MC.No.277 of 2013, by the IV
Additional Family Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner/Revision Petitioner : Mr.K.Prabhakaran
ORDER
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
1. This Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 is filed, under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 2212 days in preferring the
Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026.
2. This Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026 is filed, under Sections 438 and 442
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), against the
order, dated 26.03.2018, passed in MC.No.277 of 2013, by the IV
Additional Family Court, Chennai.
3. The facts of the case, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of this
Petition, are that the Revision Petitioner and the 1st Respondent got
married on 04.09.2006. Due to matrimonial dispute, the Petitioner had
neglected the 1st Respondent and the 1st Respondent had left the
matrimonial home. In the application in MC.No.277 of 2013 filed by the
Respondent under Section 125 of Cr.PC, seeking maintenance, by the
impugned order, the Trial Court had awarded a maintenance of
Rs.11,000/- p.m. to the Respondents. As against the same, the Revision
Petitioner had preferred Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026, along with the
present Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 2212 days,
in preferring the above Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026.
4. This Court heard Mr.K.Prabhakaran, the learned counsel for the
Revision Petitioner.
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the delay of 2212
days in preferring the above Criminal Revision Case had occurred due to
financial constraints and family commitments and that the said delay is
neither deliberate nor willful and that unless the delay is condoned, the
petitioner will be put to irreparable hardship and hence, the learned
Counsel prays this Court to allow this Petition, by condoning the delay
in preferring the Criminal Revision Case, in the interest of justice.
6. This Court has given its careful and anxious consideration to the
contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the Revision
Petitioner and also perused the entire materials available on record.
7. The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act with a prayer for condoning the delay of 2212 days in
filing the Criminal Revision Case.
8. The standard period of limitation for filing a Criminal Revision Petition
under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (BNSS), is 90 days from the date of the impugned order, as
stipulated under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the present
case, the Criminal Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 2212
days. However, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Court is
empowered to condone the delay if the Petitioner is able to demonstrate
3/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
“sufficient cause” for not preferring the revision within the prescribed
limitation period. The explanation offered must be reasonable, bona fide,
and not indicative of negligence or inaction.
9. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the Petitioner for condoning
the delay are that the delay of 2212 days had occurred due to financial
constraints and family commitments and that the said delay is neither
deliberate nor willful
10.After perusal of the records, this Court finds that there is neither a
satisfactory explanation nor any valid reasons for condoning the
inordinate delay of 2212 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case.
Hence, the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition is a time-barred one and
cannot be sustained on the ground of laches.
11.The expression “sufficient cause“ and satisfactory explanation has been
held to receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice
and generally, a delay in preferring a petition may be condoned in the
interest of justice, where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or
lack of bona fide is imputable to parties, seeking condonation of delay.
In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Katiji, reported in
1987(2) SCC 107, the Honourable Supreme Court said that when
substantial justice and technical considerations are taken against each
4/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for, the other
side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of
a non deliberate delay. The Court further said that judiciary is respected
not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but
because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.
12. In the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, reported in
AIR 1998 SC 2276, the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to
observe as under:-
“Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it
has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so
prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of
limitation on equitable grounds.“
13.The Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties. They
virtually take away the remedy. They are meant with the objective that
parties should not resort to dilatory tactics and sleep over their rights.
They must seek remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal
remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The
statute relating to limitation determines a life span for such legal remedy
for redress of the legal injury, one has suffered. Time is precious and the
wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time, newer causes
would come up, necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by
5/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
approaching the Courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy.
Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending
uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The statute providing limitation
is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest
reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period
be put to litigation). It is for this reason that when an action becomes
barred by time, the Court should be slow to ignore delay for the reason
that once limitation expires, other party matures his rights on the subject
with attainment of finality. Though it cannot be doubted that refusal to
condone delay would result in foreclosing the suiter from putting forth
his cause but simultaneously the party on the other hand is also entitled
to sit and feel carefree after a particular length of time, getting relieved
from persistent and continued litigation.
14.There is no presumption that the delay in approaching the Court is
always deliberate. No person gains from deliberate delaying a matter by
not resorting to take appropriate legal remedy within time but then the
words “sufficient cause“ show that delay, if any, occurred, should not be
deliberate, negligent and due to casual approach of concerned litigant,
but, it should be bona fide, and, for the reasons beyond his control, and,
in any case should not lack bona fide. If the explanation does not smack
6/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
of lack of bona fide, the Court should show due consideration to the
litigant, but, when there is apparent casual approach on the part of
litigant, the approach of Court is also bound to change. Lapse on the part
of litigant in approaching Court within time is understandable but a total
inaction for long period of delay without any explanation whatsoever
and that too in absence of showing any sincere attempt on the part of
litigant, would add to his negligence, and would be relevant factor going
against him.
15.I need not to burden this judgment with a catena of decisions explaining
and laying down as to what should be the approach of Court on
construing “sufficient cause“ and it would be suffice to refer a very few
of them besides those already referred.
16.In the case of Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, reported,
AIR 1969 SC 575, a three Judge Bench of the Court said that unless
want of bona fide of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a
party of the protection, the application must not be thrown out or any
delay cannot be refused to be condoned.
17. The Privy Council, in the case of Brij Indar Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram
reported in ILR (1918) 45 Cal 94, observed that true guide for a court
to exercise the discretion is whether the appellant acted with reasonable
7/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
diligence in prosecuting the appeal. This principle still holds good
inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of Privy Council as repeatedly been
referred to, and, recently in State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok AO and
others, AIR 2005 SC 2191.
18. In the case of Vedabai @ Vijayanatabai Baburao Vs. Shantaram
Baburao Patil and others, reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 608, the Court
said that under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it should adopt a pragmatic
approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is
inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. In the former
case consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor
so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no
such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal
approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard and the
basic guiding factor is advancement of substantial justice.
19.In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (dead) by LRS. Vs. Executive
Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and Another, reported in (2008)
17 SCC 448, in para 17 of the judgment, the Court said :-
“…The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for
long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into
belated and state claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats
equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and “do not
slumber over their rights.“8/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
20.In the case of Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Brihan Mumbai, reported in 2012 (5) SCC 157, in para 18 of the
judgment, the Court said as under:-
“What needs to be emphasized is that even though a liberal and
justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the
exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and
other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious
of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights
on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is
consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.
What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the
factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona
fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has
been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause
shown for the delay does not lack bonafides, then it may
condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given
by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly
negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate
exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. In cases
involving the State and its agencies/instrumentalities, the Court
can take note of the fact that sufficient time is taken in the
decision making process but no premium can be given for total
lethargy or utter negligence on the part of the officers of the
State and / or its agencies/instrumentalities and the applications
filed by them for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a
matter of course by accepting the plea that dismissal of the
matter on the ground of bar of limitation will cause injury to the
public interest.“
21.In this case, after taking into consideration the averments made in the
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after hearing the
learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner, this Court is not satisfied
9/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026that the Petitioner has explained the delay in filing the present Criminal
Revision Case.
22. In my view, the kind of explanation rendered herein does not satisfy the
observations of the Honourable Supreme Court that if delay has occurred
for reasons, which does not smack of mala fide, the Court should be
reluctant to refuse condonation. On the contrary, I find that here is a
case, which shows complete careless and reckless long delay on the part
of the Petitioner, which has remain virtually unexplained at all.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to exercise my judicial discretion
exercising judiciously so as to justify the condonation of delay in the
present case.
23.In the result, in the light of the above said observations and discussions
made above and in the light of the decisions referred to above, this
Court is of the view that this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, seeking to
condone the delay of 2212 days in preferring the Criminal Revision Case
is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. Consequently,
the above Criminal Revision Case in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026 is
rejected. There is no order as to costs.
24.Let a copy of this order be sent by the Registry of this Court to the IV
Additional Family Court, Chennai, for its compliance and information.
10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
21.07.2026
Index:Yes/No
Web:Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking
Neutral Citation
Srcm
To
1. IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026 in Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
SHAMIM AHMED, J.
Srcm
Crl.MP.No.12687 of 2026
and Crl.RC.SR.No.40145 of 2026
21.07.2026
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
