Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Ravi Kumar Gupta, son of Lalan Prasad Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Prity Gupta @ Prity Kumari, wife of Ravi Kumar Gupta, Daughter of Sri Rakesh Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant first appeal, under Section 19(1) of Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2024 and 06.11.2024 respectively passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No.398 of 2021, whereby and whereunder, the suit filed by the respondent-Prity Gupta under Sections 13(i-a)and(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been decreed in favour of the petitioner- respondent and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent has been dissolved and further the respondent-appellant was directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as full and final alimony to the petitioner- Prity Gupta.
2. At the outset, Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellant-husband has submitted that in terms of order dated 09.12.2025 an amount of Rs.10,000/- has already been transferred in the account of the respondent-wife.
3. The aforesaid fact has been admitted by Mr. Pradyot Chatterjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife.
I.A. No. 12624 of 2025
4. The instant appeal is admittedly barred by limitation since there is delay of 168 days in preferring the appeal, therefore, an app
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....
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.
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, with negligence and inaction being critical factors.
The law of limitation must be applied strictly, and delay in filing appeals can only be condoned on sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in filing appeals, and mere claims without evidence are insufficient.
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
