THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-3976-2018
(RAKESH KUMAR CHOURASIA Vs SMT. RINKI CHOURASIA)

Jabalpur, Dated : 05-02-2018
Shri L.C. Chaurasiya, Advocate for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission.
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed
against the order dated 4/8/2017 passed in MJC No.9/2015 by which

sh
the application filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Indian
Limitation Act has been rejected and accordingly the revision filed by

e
ad
the applicant has also been rejected as barred by time.
The necessary facts for the disposal of present application in
Pr
short are that the respondent, who is the wife of the applicant, had

a
filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In the said
hy

proceedings, by order dated 5/9/2011 an interim maintenance was
ad

fixed, against which the applicant had filed a Criminal Revision. The
said Criminal Revision was dismissed by order dated 22/9/2013
M

mentioning specifically that the application filed against the applicant
of

under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has already been finally decided by order
dated 5/7/2012. It appears that the applicant did not file the revision
rt

immediately against the order dated 5/7/2012 and filed the Criminal
ou

Revision on 24/3/2014. It was mentioned in the application filed under
C

Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act that the applicant came to know
about the dismissal of revision against the order dated 5/9/2011 on
h
ig

8/2/2014.

H

It is submitted that since the counsel for the applicant was not
well and whenever he had enquired from his counsel, he informed on
phone that the revision will be filed very soon and, therefore, there is a
reasonable cause for non-filing the revision within the period of
limitation. It is further submitted that for the fault of the counsel, the
parties should not be made to suffer.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order
under challenge.

It is clear from the order dated 4/8/2017, which is passed by the
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur and which is under
challenge, that the applicant had initially filed a criminal revision
against the order dated 5/9/2011 by which interim maintenance was
granted, however, said revision was dismissed by order dated
22/9/2013 mentioning specifically that the application under Section
125 of Cr.P.C. has already been decided by order dated 5/7/2012.
Thus, it is clear that the applicant came to know about the final order
passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on 22/9/2013 when his criminal
revision against the order dated 5/9/2011 was finally disposed of. Even
then the applicant did not file the revision against the order dated
5/7/2012 immediately and filed the revision on 24/3/2014. So far as

sh
the reasons for not filing the revision immediately after 22/9/2013 is

e
concerned, it was stated by the applicant that since the counsel for the

ad
applicant was required to go out of station for his treatment and,

Pr
therefore, the revision could not be filed within the period of
limitation. The said ground raised by the applicant cannot be accepted.

a
Undisputedly, the applicant is a practicing lawyer practicing at
hy

Lalitpur (UP), therefore, his contention that he was not told by his
ad

local counsel about non-filing of revision cannot be accepted. His
M

contention that he was not told by his local counsel about the outcome
of his revision, which was filed against the order dated 5/9/2011, also
of

cannot be accepted, because the applicant is not a rustic villager. The
applicant is a law knowing person, who is practicing as a lawyer in a
rt

District Court and, therefore, he was aware of the fact that the order
ou

has to be challenged within the period of limitation provided under the
C

Limitation Act. When the applicant was not vigilant to know about the
h

outcome of the revision, which was filed against the order dated
ig

5/9/2011, then he himself has to be blamed and he cannot take
H

advantage of the fact that he was not told by his counsel about the
outcome of the order. When he came to know about the fact that the
outcome of the revision was not told to him immediately by his local
counsel, then he should have approached the Bar Council making a
complaint of professional misconduct against his local counsel, which
was not done by him. Therefore, the stand taken by the counsel for the
applicant about the delay in filing criminal revision against the order
dated 5/7/2012, cannot be accepted. Since in the proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. the applicant was proceeded ex parte, therefore,
it might be possible that he may not be knowing about the final order
passed on 5/7/2012, but after dismissal of his revision on 22/9/2013,
which he had filed against the order dated 5/9/2011, it is clear that the
applicant must have come to know about passing of final order on
5/7/2012. Even then, he did not challenge the order dated 5/7/2012
immediately after 22/9/2013 and still he took as many as six months
for filing the revision challenging the order dated 5/7/2012. Thus, it is
clear that the applicant was trying to deal with the proceedings
according to his whims and wishes and in complete derogation of the
period of limitation. Since the applicant is not a rustic person and he is

sh
a law knowing person fully aware of the period of limitation,

e
therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revisional

ad
court did not commit any mistake in dismissing the application filed

Pr
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. as barred by limitation.

Accordingly, the order dated 4/8/2017 passed in MJC No.9/2015
a
is hereby affirmed.

hy

This application fails and is hereby dismissed.

ad

(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
M

JUDGE
of
rt
ou

Arun*
C

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR
MISHRA
h

Date: 2018.02.06 17:30:30 +05’30’
ig
H