The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right lawfully accrued to a party under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot be taken away by condoning the delay in filing an appeal, unless sufficient cause is shown for the delay.

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 550 days in filing the above C.M.S.A. against the decree and judgment passed in H.M.C.M.A.No.35 of 2004, dated 31.07.2004, on the file of the District Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment passed in H.M.O.P.No.369 of 1993 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, dated 112. 2003.

2. Themarriage of both parties was celebrated on 17.06.1984 in Paganeri. Due to love lost between them, they got separated which led the respondent to file a petition for divorce in H.M.O.P.No.369 of 1993 under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petition was allowed dissolving the marriage by means of a decree, on 112. 2003. The petitioner took the matter in appeal in H.M.C.M.A.No.35 of 2004 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli and by means of a judgment, dated 31.07.2004, the appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the Court below dismissing the appeal.

3. From the above said appeal, the petitioner presently intends to prefer appeal before this Court, of course, with a delay of 550 days. In the affidavit, she has alleged that the copies of the judgment and decree were made ready on 212. 2004. However, she was not in a position to file appeal within time, that after some period, she was advised to approach the Legal Aid for filing the appeal and in the mean time, there was a delay in filing the appeal and that if the delay is not condoned, she will be put to irreparable hardship and she has got a fair chance to have success in the appeal and hence, the delay may be condoned.

4. The respondent filed a counter affidavit by stating that the petitioner is a rich lady and she is possessing immovable properties and jewels that she has made false and frivolous complaints, that she wantonly did not file any appeal against the order of the appellate Court and allowed the appeal time to lapse and after that, she has belatedly filed this petition with a bald allegation that she was not in a position to file the delay, that the reasons mentioned in the affidavit do not constitute sufficient cause and she was actively involved in making complaints to All Women Police Station in Sivaganga and that since there was no hint of the petitioner filing any appeal against the dismissal of her first appeal in H.M.C.M.A.NO.35 of 2004, passed on 31.07.2004, he married one Shantha on 112. 2005 at Mathur. Presently, the petitioner is living at Tirunelveli. The petitioner has got full knowledge of the marriage, that she has initiated under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.16 of 1996 before the Family Court, at Madurai, that she filed an application in Cr.M.P.No.77 of 2002 for enhancement of maintenance from Rs.500/- to Rs.3,000/-per month, that if the delay is condoned, it will cause great hardships to the respondent herein, since initiation on the part of the petitioner is a very belated one.

5. Thepetitioner filed reply affidavits by stating that she was getting only a sum of Rs.500/-per month as maintenance from the husband. Due to penury, she was unable to prefer appeal and after a good guidance, she approached the Legal Aid to prefer the appeal, which caused the delay of 550 days and that the delay may be condoned.

.6. In the additional counter affidavit, the respondent has stated that the marriage which he contracted after the appeal time was over is lawful under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act and as such, the petitioners right have come to an end and she is not entitled to reopen the claim and that the petition under Section 15 of the Act is not maintainable.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.V.Venkatesh Perumal would submit that the averments contained in the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner are genuine, that she had no intention to delay the proceedings, that she was getting only Rs.500/- per month and hence, she could not prefer appeal from the appellate Courts order, that only aft