Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARINDAM SINHA, SATYA VEER SINGH
Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia – Appellant
Versus
Rahul Sisodia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arindam Sinha, J.
1. Mr. Saurabh Sachan, learned advocate appears on behalf applicant- appellant and presses for admission of the appeal on condonation of reported delay of 654 days. Mr. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned advocate appears for respondent.
2. Applicant-appellant was wife in the marriage declared void by judgment dated 18th August, 2023 of the Family Court. Mr. Sachan presses for admission on submission that respondent took ground under section 12(1)(c) in Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Sub-clause (ii) under clause (a) in sub-section (2) of section 12 bars respondent from having taken the ground since he, subsequent to filing of the petition, cohabitated with his client and there was a baby from the union.
3. The application for condonation of delay was moved on 18th February, 2026. Paragraph 3 from our order made that day is reproduced below.
"3. There is an element of necessity to hear merits of applicant's case, even for answering the question on condonation of delay. As such list the application and appeal on 12th March, 2026 marked at 02:00 pm."
4. Mr. Sachan relies on several judgments. Firstly, view taken by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court on judgment dated
Void marriage under Section 11 HMA for subsisting prior spouse upheld; admission via affidavit post-notice suffices without proving ceremonies; 654-day appeal delay not condoned for lack of bona fide....
The court established that a decree of divorce, whether contested or ex-parte, allows either party to remarry once the appeal period has expired, as per Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
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.
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.
An appeal against a decree of divorce by mutual consent is not maintainable if the consent is claimed to be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a leg....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning delay in appeals, advocating a liberal approach while ensuring timely legal action.
Insufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing an appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act leads to dismissal of the appeal.
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
