Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, DEEPAK ROSHAN
Kailash Prasad Mahto, son of late Teklal Mahto – Appellant
Versus
Meena Kumari, wife of Kailash Prasad Mahto – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay condonation considered before merits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. illness and finances cited for delay. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. sufficient cause requires diligence, bona fides; strict application. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. explanation inadequate due to negligence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. dismiss delay application and appeal. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
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
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.
Inordinate 168-day delay in matrimonial appeal not condoned; misconception of limitation period and bicycle injury deemed insufficient cause due to negligence, lack of diligence and bona fides.
The principle that a party must provide a sufficient and bona fide explanation for any delay in filing an appeal, particularly when the party is educated in law, is crucial for the court's discretion....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal must be adequately justified, and negligence or lack of bona fides can bar condonation.
The Court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning appeal delays must include diligence and bona fides; ignorance of law and financial hardship alone are insufficient grounds for delay beyond t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause and bona fide motive when seeking condonation of delay.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, and mere claims without evidence are insufficient.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
