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.

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 application being I.A. No. 12624 of 2025 has been filed for condoning such delay.

5. This Court, after taking into consideration the fact that the instant appeal has been filed after inordinate delay of 168 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.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that delay in preferring the appeal may be condoned by allowing the Interlocutory Application on the basis of grounds shown therein treating the same to be sufficient.

7. The ground for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been mentioned at paragraph 3 of the interlocutory application is that the appellant was under a misconception of the statutory period of limitation to be of 90 days to file First Appeal, but after completion of 70 days when the appellant consulted with the learned counsel who conducted his case before the learned Trial Court, he told the appellant that the First Appeal had to be filed within 30 days and then only the same has been filed along with a limitation petition. For the ready reference paragraph no.3 of the present interlocutory application is quoted herein under which reads as follows:

“3. That there is neither deliberate intention nor willful negligence on the part of the appellant in not filing this first appeal within the statutory period of limitation but as a matter of fact the appellant were under a misconception of the statutory period of limitation to be of 90 days to file First Appeal, but after completion of 70 days when the appellant consulted with the learned counsel who conducted his case before the learned trial court told the appellant that the First Appeal had to be filed within 30 days only and now the same may be filed before the Hon’ble High Court along with a limitation petition.”

8. Further, at paragraph – 5 of the interlocutory application it has been mentioned that the appellant had fallen on the ground after getting slipped in the mud while riding on the bicycle and there had been several scratches on his leg and as such the appellant had to get treatment by way of village therapy and then only he could be able to get recovered and move to this Court.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on