The seminal issue to be decided in this appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is whether the Family Court is justified in dismissing the suit at the stage of registration.

2. This appeal is barred by 601 days for which the appellant has preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, therefore, before proceeding to deal with the merits of the appeal, we shall consider the application for condonation of delay.

3. It was argued that because of financial constraints the appellant No.1 could not approach this Court within time to challenge the impugned order, however, when she received notice in Civil Suit No. 94-A/2015 filed by the respondent for declaration wherein similar relief in relation to marital status of the parties has been prayed, she was constrained to approach this Court, therefore, the delay being bona fide and unintentional deserves to be condoned.

4. On the other hand, the respondent would state that appellant No.1 is a working woman and has filed 3 separate proceedings under Sections 127 CrPC, 125 (3) CrPC and under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 & 22 of the Domestic Violence Act from June to November, 2015, therefore, there is no truth in the submission that she was having financial constraints. It was further argued that the appellant No.1 has failed to explain each days delay.

5. The present matter pertains to declaration of marital status of the parties which shall have bearing on appellant No.1 throughout her life. Moreover, the suit has been dismissed without registration and not on merits. The respondent has also filed a suit seeking declaration that the appellant No.1 is not his legally married wife and for permanent injunction that she should never claim to be the respondent's wife. Thus, in the suit preferred by the respondent, marital status of the parties would be decided, therefore, if the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned, the respondent shall not be prejudicially affected. As a matter of fact, any decision on merits in the first suit would serve both the parties, therefore, instead of taking a pedantic or hyper-technical view of the matter, we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal and decide the present appeal on merits rather than dismissing the same on the ground of limitation, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst. Katiji and others (AIR 1987 SC 1353).

6. Facts necessary to be referred for considering the seminal issue is that the appellant, a Muslim girl before marriage, allegedly married the respondent on 5.4.2003 as per Hindu rituals and customs. A baby girl namely, Anushka Majumdar was born out of the said wedlock on 8.5.2004. Her baptism ceremony was also performed as per Hindu rituals and customs at the parental house of the respondent husband. She is presently studying in class-6th and the school records contain the name of the respondent as her father.

7. It is averred in the plaint that lately, the respondent got entangled with another lady namely, Itishri Goutam and eventually started harassing the appellant No.1 both physically and mentally as also in the name of dowry, which led to filing of complaint by the appellant No.1 at Bhilai-3, which was withdrawn after reconciliation and subsequent settlement. However, the respondent again started harassing the appellant No.1, therefore, another FIR was lodged and a criminal trial is pending consideration against the respondent. The appellant No.1 was thrown out of the house in the year 2012, therefore, the appellant No.1 moved an application for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC which was initially rejected by the family Court for appellant No.1 but was allowed in favour of appellant No.2 (her daughter born out of the wedlock).

8. The appellant No.1 preferred criminal revision No. 544/2013 which was allowed by the High Court on 24.12.2014 granting maintenance to he