Case Note & Summary
The petitioner-husband filed a divorce petition (HMP No.56/2001) which was allowed by the trial court. The respondent-wife challenged the decree by filing an appeal before the District Court, Ahmednagar, along with an application for condonation of delay of 1306 days. The District Judge-5 condoned the delay, leading the petitioner to file the present writ petition. The petitioner argued that after the decree of divorce, he had remarried and had children from the second marriage, and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. The respondent contended that she was pursuing other remedies and that the delay should be condoned. The High Court examined the application for condonation and found that the respondent had merely stated that she was pursuing other remedies without providing any specific dates or details. The court held that the explanation was not sufficient and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. The court further noted that the petitioner had remarried and had children, and that condoning the delay would cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner and his family. The court set aside the order condoning the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The court considered whether a delay of 1306 days in filing an appeal against a divorce decree could be condoned. The respondent-wife failed to provide any explanation for the delay, merely stating that she was pursuing other remedies. The court held that such inordinate and unexplained delay cannot be condoned, especially when the petitioner-husband had remarried and had children from the second marriage, and the condonation would cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner and his family. (Paras 1-10)
B) Family Law - Divorce - Remarriage After Decree - Effect on Appeal - The court noted that after the divorce decree became final, the petitioner-husband remarried and had children. The court held that condoning the delay and allowing the appeal would disturb the settled status of the petitioner's second marriage and cause hardship to the petitioner and his children. The court emphasized that the respondent's lack of diligence in pursuing the appeal cannot be allowed to prejudice the rights of third parties. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Court was justified in condoning an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1306 days in filing an appeal against a divorce decree, particularly when the petitioner had remarried and had children from the second marriage.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26th June, 2012 passed by the District Judge-5, Ahmednagar in Civil Misc. Application No.199 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the respondent is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Unexplained delay
- Divorce decree
- Second marriage
- Prejudice to third party rights
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (04) 3
WRIT PETITION NO.6228 OF 2012
Shri S.S. Jadhavar for Petitioner, Shri A.K. Gawali for Respondent
Shri Dnyandev s/o Asaram Palve
Sunita w/o Dnyandev Palve
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order condoning delay in filing appeal against divorce decree.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought setting aside of the order condoning delay of 1306 days in filing appeal.
Filing Reason
The District Court condoned an inordinate and unexplained delay of 1306 days in filing appeal against divorce decree, which the petitioner contended was unjustified and prejudicial to his second marriage and children.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed the divorce petition (HMP No.56/2001). The respondent filed an appeal with delay of 1306 days, which was condoned by the District Judge-5, Ahmednagar on 26th June, 2012.
Issues
Whether the District Court was justified in condoning the delay of 1306 days in filing the appeal.
Whether the explanation given by the respondent constituted 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel submitted that after the divorce decree, the petitioner remarried and has children from the second marriage; the delay was inordinate and unexplained; the respondent merely stated she was pursuing other remedies without giving any details.
Respondent's counsel argued that the delay was not intentional and the respondent was pursuing other remedies, hence the delay should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi
An inordinate and unexplained delay of 1306 days cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, especially when the petitioner has remarried and has children from the second marriage, as condonation would cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner and his family. The mere statement that the respondent was pursuing other remedies, without any specific details, does not constitute 'sufficient cause'.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after decree of divorce came to be passed and after expiry of limitation period as prescribed under the relevant provisions, the petitioner has performed second marriage and from the said wedlock, they are blessed with children.
It is submitted that there was inordinate, unexplained delay of 1306 days and the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case while condoning the delay.
The respondent has not given any explanation for the delay of 1306 days. The only explanation given is that she was pursuing other remedies. However, no details are given as to what remedies she was pursuing and for what period.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed HMP No.56/2001 seeking divorce, which was allowed. The respondent filed an appeal before the District Court, Ahmednagar with a delay of 1306 days, along with an application for condonation of delay (Civil Misc. Application No.199 of 2009). The District Judge-5 condoned the delay on 26th June, 2012. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present writ petition on 2nd April, 2013.
Acts & Sections
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
