The Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that condonation of delay under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is subject to demonstration of bona fide conduct and compliance with interim court directions. The Court upheld existing precedent, clarifying that failure to fulfill such conditions disentitles the applicant from relief. This decision maintains the position that applicants must act in good faith and cannot seek equitable relief while in persistent default.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | I.A.(Crl.)/856/2024 of IKRAMUL HOQUE Vs SAFIA KHATUN CNR GAHC010184222024 |
| Date of Registration | 09-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing legal requirements and precedents on condonation of delay and compliance with interim directions |
| Type of Law | Criminal / Family Law (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) |
| Questions of Law | Whether condonation of delay in preferring appeal under Section 29, PWDV Act, can be granted despite non-compliance with interim maintenance orders and lack of bona fide action by the applicant. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that condonation of delay is a discretionary and equitable remedy. The applicant’s continued default in complying with orders to deposit maintenance and to take bona fide steps towards compliance disentitled him from relief. The Court emphasized that litigants who seek equitable relief must themselves be fair and prompt; mere pendency does not provide immunity from interim directions. In the absence of genuine efforts at settlement or compliance, judicial indulgence is not warranted. The findings of the lower courts were held to be without infirmity. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The judgment applied the general principles of equity, good faith, and the requirement for compliance with court directions as preconditions for discretionary relief. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner had failed to pay any maintenance amount as directed, sought repeated time extensions citing financial hardship and other responsibilities, made no genuine attempt at settlement, and did not comply even when the NBWA was temporarily stayed by the Court, leading to the ultimate dismissal of his revision. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh within the Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court of India |
| Follows | Affirms established principles requiring bona fide compliance and good conduct for invoking court’s discretion in condoning delay. |
| Overrules | None mentioned in the judgment |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that applicants seeking condonation of delay in appeals under the PWDV Act must comply with interim orders of maintenance or show bona fide intent.
- Non-compliance or evasive conduct by the petitioner in paying maintenance, even after courts grant time, is fatal to both condonation and further relief.
- The pendency of a revision or an interim stay on warrants does not freeze or excuse default on court directives.
- Lawyers should advise clients that equitable relief is contingent on clean hands and prompt compliance with court-imposed conditions.
- Courts will not permit procedural abuse, especially in cases involving the welfare of vulnerable parties.
- Brings clarity to the weight attached to interim orders and good faith conduct in delay condonation jurisprudence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court revisited the procedural history, noting that the petitioner had not complied with orders to deposit maintenance, despite ample opportunity and time extensions.
- The Court observed that judicial protection (such as a stay on warrant) was extended in good faith, but that the petitioner neither deposited maintenance nor approached the respondent for settlement as promised.
- The judgment stressed that condonation of delay under Section 29 is discretionary and can only be exercised in favour of those acting in good faith and diligently complying with lawful directions.
- The refusal to condone the delay and dismiss the revision was rooted in the applicant’s persistent non-compliance and lack of bona fide intent.
- The Court found no infirmity in the lower courts’ orders and directed that the trial court proceed as per law, reinforcing the authority and enforceability of its interim orders.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought more time on grounds of alleged ill health and financial difficulties, citing responsibility of maintaining two other wives.
- Requested additional time for settlement discussions with the respondent, but did not contact the respondent or pay any maintenance.
- Failed to appear on the final hearing date and did not fulfill any prior undertakings.
Respondent
- Through counsel, highlighted complete non-compliance by the petitioner with court orders for maintenance and compensation.
- Noted the absence of any bona fide steps towards settlement or compliance, and the inaction even after the NBWA was stayed.
Factual Background
The petitioner was directed by the JMFC, Nagaon, to arrange separate accommodation and pay rent for the respondent, along with monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000 and compensation of Rs. 20,000, plus Rs. 3000 as cost. The petitioner filed for condonation of delay to challenge these orders and sought relief before the Addl. Sessions Judge, but the petition was dismissed. During revision in the High Court, repeated opportunities were given to deposit maintenance and demonstrate settlement efforts; however, the petitioner did not comply or appear, resulting in dismissal of the petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 29, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was at the core of the matter, governing appeals against orders under the Act and the power of courts to condone delay.
- The Court interpreted the provision to mean that condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion and requires demonstration of sufficient cause along with compliance with related court directions.
- The Court did not engage in a narrow or expansive interpretation, but applied settled principles of equity and good faith inherent to such procedural provisions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment required the petitioner, as a condition for filing additional documents, to first deposit maintenance for a specified period before the Registry—a practical step to prevent abuse of process.
- The order demonstrates a procedural model for ensuring compliance before allowing further participation in proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing law and applies established principles regarding compliance with interim directions and condonation of delay.