Inordinate delay lacks sufficient cause where litigant actively participated in execution proceedings of the impugned order.

The respondent-wife filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

On 16.11.2022, the Family Court, Datia, passed a final order granting maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondents.

The petitioner initially participated in the proceedings but was later declared ex-parte.

The petitioner filed the present revision with a delay of 646 days, claiming he lacked knowledge of the final order until he received an execution notice in 2024.

The respondents contested this, producing evidence of the petitioner's signatures on order-sheets and records showing he deposited maintenance amounts in subsequent recovery proceedings.

1. Whether the petitioner established "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 646 days in filing the criminal revision

2. Whether the petitioner’s claim of lack of knowledge regarding the final order is bona fide in light of his participation in subsequent execution proceedings

The court applied the principles of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing that while a liberal approach is preferred to achieve substantial justice, it cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation or revive stale matters where there is negligence or lack of bona fides.

The court relied on Pathapati Subba Reddy v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) (2024), which held that merits of a case are irrelevant when deciding limitation.

The court relied on H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (2025), which established that the court must first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation provided by the litigant.

The court found the petitioner's explanation for the 646-day delay to be factually incorrect and lacking bona fides.

Record perusal revealed that the petitioner had marked the final order as "noted" and signed the order-sheet on 16.11.2022.

Furthermore, the petitioner had actively participated in multiple recovery proceedings under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C. between 2023 and 2024, depositing various sums (Rs. 25,000, Rs. 35,000, and Rs. 42,000) toward the maintenance arrears.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner was aware of the recovery proceedings stemming from the final order, his plea of ignorance was unsustainable.

Consequently, the court held that the petitioner failed to show "sufficient cause," as the delay was deliberate and resulted from inaction.

Consequently, Criminal Revision No. 5883 of 2024 was dismissed as barred by time.