Inordinate 211-day delay in divorce appeal not condoned; illness, financial hardship and distant work held insufficient cause lacking diligence and bona fides, despite knowledge of judgment.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act against the order/judgment dated 21.09.2024 and decree dated 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Bermo at Tenughat in Original Suit No.11 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, the Suit filed by the appellant under Sections 13(1)(i), 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been dismissed.

I.A.No.13682 of 2025

2. The instant appeal is barred by inordinate delay of 211 days, therefore, an application for condoning the aforesaid delay has been filed being I.A.No.13682 of 2025.

3. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 211 days, deems it fit and proper, to first consider the delay condonation application before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned order on merit.

4. The ground for condonation of delay has been taken, as per the pleading made in the instant interlocutory application that after the judgment passed by the learned Family Court Bermo at Tenughat on 21.09.2024 the conducting advocate by telephonic communication informed the appellant/ petitioner for the dismissal of judgment passed by learned Family Court.

5. It is further stated that on receipt of certified copy of award the counsel conducting the case before the learned Family Court gave his opinion to appellant/petitioner to prefer appeal before this Hon'ble Court.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family and the petitioner is residing at Andhra Pradesh for doing labour work and on the time of dismissal of case, the petitioner was suffering from kidney stone and his medical treatment was going on at that time and the petitioner is suffering from acute financial hardship.

7. The appellant during course of treatment was advised to rest and also advised not to undertake long journey therefore he was confined to his place of work and substantial amount was spent on his treatment due to which the appellant was under financial constraint therefore he could not contact his counsel for filing the appeal within time.

8. The petitioner after completing his treatment resumed his job and arranged the money for filing this first appeal and as such no appeal could be filed by the appellant within the period of limitation.

9. It is stated that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate and has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.

10. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, therefore, has prayed to condone the delay and has submitted that the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application is sufficient to condone the delay.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay condonation application and before considering the same, this Court, deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal proposition as has been propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court with respect to the approach of the Court in condoning the inordinate delay.

12. There is no dispute about the fact that generally the lis is not to be rejected on the technical ground of limitation but certainly if the filing of appeal suffers from inordinate delay, then the duty of the Court is to consider the application to condone the delay before entering into the merit of the lis.

13. It requires to refer herein that the Law of limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the general wel