ORDER :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel representing the Respondent on the question of limitation involved in the present appeal.

2. Appellant has preferred I.A. No. 539/2020 under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 30 days in preferring the instant Memo of Appeal.

3. In order to appreciate the legal issues involved herein, some relevant facts and dates are being briefly indicated hereunder.

Appellant instituted Matrimonial Title Suit No. 300/2011 before the learned Family Court, Ranchi under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage with the Respondent on the ground of cruelty. By an order dated 14.03.2012, learned Family Court allowed interim maintenance and litigation cost to the Respondent. Since the appellant failed to comply with the order dated 14.03.2012, the suit was dismissed on 05.08.2015 on the ground that the petitioner had not paid ad interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000/- per month and Rs. 10,000/- lump sum as litigation cost to the Respondent. As such, he is not entitled to get relief on his own fault. The Respondent facing hardship was not able to contest the case. The case was accordingly dropped.

4. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred writ petition WPC No. 4989/2015 under Article 227 of Constitution of India instituted on 12.10.2015. By order dated 03.12.2018, petitioner was allowed to convert the writ petition into an appeal under section 19 of Family Courts’ Act, 1984. The present appeal was instituted on 04.02.2019 thereafter. Office pointed out a delay of 30 days in preferring the instant Memo of Appeal, for condonation of which, the instant I.A has been preferred.

5. Two important questions arose on the point of condonation of delay which have been indicated in the previous order dated 09.12.2020 and are as follows.

(i) What is the manner of computation of the period of limitation when a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or any other petition/application/appeal is permitted by an order of this Court to be converted into an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984?

(ii) What is the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act from a judgment and order passed by the Family Court in a suit instituted under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 i.e., 30 days in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act of 1984 or 90 days in terms of amended Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the Marriage Laws (Amendment Act), 2003?

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed the Court on both issues. We proceed to address the legal issues involved, hereinafter. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan & others versus Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur & others, (2009) 5 SCC 162 on the proposition that a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India or a revision under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure can be permitted to be converted into an appeal which lies before the High Court. However, the Court must also be satisfied that the initial petition/application was not filed mala fide. Para-48 of the Report is quoted hereunder for better appreciation:

“48. If the High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain either an appeal or a revision application or a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in a given case it, subject to fulfillment of other conditions, could even convert a revision application or a writ petition into an appeal or vice versa in exercise of its inherent power. Indisputably, however, for the said purpose, an appropriate case for exercise of such jurisdiction must be made out.”

Reliance has further been placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Vinod Kumar versus Kailash Kumar reported in [2011 (1) Mh. L.J.] 269 on the identical question involved therein. There was a dela