Delay in filing appeals from decrees passed by Family Courts under matrimonial laws is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as these special laws do not expressly exclude the Limitation Act's application to appeals.

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)

By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 138 days caused in preferring the captioned first appeal.

2. Ms. Mariya M. Dalal, learned advocate, has submitted that the applicant is the wife, who has filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act of 1955”) requesting for restitution of the conjugal rights, which was not accepted. It is submitted that the respondent subjected the applicant to cruelty, physical abuse and emotional neglect. It is submitted that she was driven out and hence, was compelled to file the application seeking restitution of the conjugal rights, which has been dismissed by the court below. As the applicant is unaware about the nuances of the law; prompt steps for challenging the judgment, could not be taken. Despite which, strenuous efforts were put by her of meeting the advocate and providing the papers to the advocate coupled with the instructions. After undertaking all these steps, the appeal was filed and some time got consumed. It is submitted that the delay is bona fide and there was no negligence on the part of the applicant in approaching the court.

3. Mr. N.D. Songara, learned advocate, has opposed the application by contending that sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act of 1984”), does not provide for condoning the delay beyond 30 days. Similarly, sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Act of 1955, does not provide the court to condone the delay beyond 90 days. It is therefore, submitted that in either of the Acts; there are no powers available with the court to condone the delay.

3.1 Adverting to the merits of the case, it is submitted that the judgment was passed on 18.12.2024, and the certified copy was applied and was received on 10.01.2025; however, for the period of six months, the applicant has not filed any appeal. Besides, the explanation is missing for the substantial period from 09.06.2025. Hence, in the absence of any explanation, the delay need not be condoned.

4. In rejoinder, Ms. Mariya M. Dalal, learned advocate, while placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arunoday Singh Vs. Lee Anne Elton reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 455, submitted that the objection is misplaced, considering the fact that the issue is no longer res integra. The Apex Court, while considering the interplay of the provisions of the Act of 1984, the Act of 1955, and the Limitation Act, 1963, has held and observed that, delay in filing the appeal, from the decree of divorce, is condonable. It is further noted when the rejection of apparently meritorious appeal on the ground of limitation is pitted against deciding the appeal on merits, the Courts are entitled to take a liberal approach in deciding the application for condonation of delay. It is therefore, submitted that in view of the settled proposition, the objection raised by the respondent, is unsustainable. Also, on merits, the objection is without any basis.

5. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties.

6. The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.12.2024, passed in Family Suit No. 41 of 2024. From the record, it appears that on 23.12.2024, the applicant applied for the certified copy, which was ready for delivery on 30.12.2024, and was made available on 10.01.2025