An application for condonation of delay requires a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for each day of delay. A party cannot claim ignorance of procedural law to justify inordinate laches or lack of diligence, as limitation laws must be applied strictly to uphold statutory finality and fairness.

Headnote:(A) Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10(1)(i) and 10(1)(ix) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Application for condonation of delay - Inordinate delay of 224 days - Requirement of 'sufficient cause' - Law of limitation is founded on public policy to secure peace, suppress fraud and perjury, and prevent oppression - It is not sufficient for a litigant to claim lack of procedural knowledge when they have remained in contact with legal counsel - Every day's delay must be explained with a reasonable and acceptable explanation - Condonation is an exception, not a right - Failure to show sufficient cause or lack of bona fides warrants dismissal of the application. (Paras 16, 25, 27, 36, 38)

(B) Appeal - Delay condonation - Burden of proof - It is for the appellant to show sufficient cause for the delay - Court to balance interests while ensuring law of limitation is applied with rigour where statutes so prescribe - Discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and not in a routine-like manner - Absence of plausible explanation for inaction or negligence by the litigant renders the application unsustainable. (Paras 26, 30, 39)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed for divorce on grounds of desertion and adultery. The trial court dismissed the suit on contest. The appellant preferred an appeal after a delay of 224 days, citing his status as a rustic villager and lack of knowledge regarding procedural law as the reasons for the delay.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the explanation provided for the inordinate delay did not constitute 'sufficient cause'. The appellant was in consistent touch with counsel throughout the process, belying the claim of ignorance. The Court emphasized that limitation law must be applied with rigour to protect rights that have accrued over time.

Issues: Whether the appellant has demonstrated 'sufficient cause' for condoning an inordinate delay of 224 days in filing the appeal against the dismissal of a divorce petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that for the condonation of delay, the applicant must satisfy the court that they were prevented by a sufficient cause and acted with due diligence. A liberal approach to limitation cannot be invoked to excuse gross negligence or lack of bona fides.

Result: Appeal and application for condonation of delay dismissed.

Table of Content
1. matrimonial dispute facts regarding marriage, divorce petition, and trial court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7)
2. appellant's grounds for appeal and contention of error in lower court's findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. strict interpretation of limitation law and requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condonation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. dismissal of appeal due to failure to show sufficient cause for delay. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)

Order No.03/Dated:5th January, 2026

Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant appeal under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment dated 17.12.2024 and the decree dated 04.01.2025 passed in Matrimonial Case No.09 of 2023 by the learned Principal District Judge, Khunti whereby and whereunder the petition filed under sections 10(1), (i) and 10(1) (ix) of Divorce Act, 1869 by the appellant-husband against the respondent-wife has been dismissed on contest.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the plaint having been recorded by the learned Principal District Judge, needs to be referred herein reads under as:

(i) The case of the petitioner as per plaint in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 18.07.1985 as per Christian rites and rituals at G.E.L. Church Beralonger, P.S-Bano, District-Gumla under G.E.L. Church Lotakel Paris.

(ii) It is further stated that after solemnization of marriage both the parties started peaceful conjugal life with each other at the house of the petitioner at village- Maidan Toli, Khunti for about one and half years.

(iii) It is further case of the petitioner that after some time difference arose between the spouse. The petitioner with his moral obligation always tried to maintain happy conjugal life with the opposite party with hope that gradually everything will be normal.

(iv) It is stated that on 15.12.1986 the mother-in-law of the petitioner came to his house at Khunti and took away the Opposite Party/wife by giving assurance that she will be back after celebration of Christian festival. After passing of Christmas the petitioner went to his matrimonial home to bring back his wife but she was not ready to come back and directly refused to lead her conjugal life with the petitioner.

(v) However, the petitioner tried his level best to convince her but she was adamant with her previous attitude and she neither came to the matrimonial house nor did she had any physical relation at any time since then.

(vi) It is stated that the petitioner and his family members tried to sort out the difference arose between them but all went in vain and the last attempt to restitute the conjugal life was also futile when the petitioner and his family members approached the respondent to lead a peaceful life on 18.07.2019.

3. It is evident from the factual aspect as narrated hereinabove that the marriage in between the appellant and the respondent, the wife and the husband, respectively was solemnized on 18.07.1985 as per Christian rites and rituals. After marriage both the spouse leading a happy marital life but soon thereafter there were some altercations arose between them and they started living separately and finally a suit under sections 10(1) of Divorce Act, 1869 has been filed by the husband for dissolution of their marriage.

4. In the divorce suit, the respondent-wife had appeared and filed her written statement denying all the allegations levelled against her by her husband. The factum of marriage has been admitted but it is denied that she had withdrawn herself from the life of the petitioner and deserted him. It has been alleged that the petitioner did not like company of the wife and he used to continuously give her ill-treatment. The petitioner always misbehaved with her but she ignored the same hoping that the matter would be resolved in future. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 92

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, JJJunul Topno – AppellantVersusPhibi Franciska Kongari – RespondentFirst Appeal No. 172 of 2025|I.A No.12917 of 2025

Cases Referred (7)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, JJ
Junul Topno – Appellant
Versus
Phibi Franciska Kongari – Respondent
First Appeal No. 172 of 2025|I.A No.12917 of 2025