The court established that 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay must be liberally construed to achieve substantial justice, and that arrogant or defiant conduct by litigants toward court-ordered maintenance in open proceedings constitutes prima facie criminal contempt, undermining the dignity and authority of the judiciary.

Order No. 08/Dated 19^th February, 2026

I.A. No.15747 of 2025

1. This Court since has proceeded and has also called upon the parties in person but before proceeding further thought it proper to first hear the issue of condonation of delay.

2. The appeal since has been filed after delay of 1504 days and, as such, to condone the delay, instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.15747 of 2025, has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife has submitted by referring paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the delay condonation application, particularly, by raising the ground that the impugned judgment is ex parte and has made a prayer to condone the delay.

4. It has been submitted that the wife is living with 14 years old female child and if the appeal will not be heard on merit then the appellant-wife will suffer irreparable loss and injury which will be irreparable for all time to come.

5. Serious opposition has been made by Mr. D.K.Malityar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband, by referring the stand inter alia taken in the counter affidavit.

6. It has been submitted in the affidavit that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant wife to take the ground that the proceeding pending before the learned Family Judge, which has been culminated into the order impugned, was not within her knowledge, rather, the wife was fully conscious with the order. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be said to be ex parte. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal since is inordinate, as such, not fit to be condoned.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings filed on behalf of the respective parties on the issue of condonation of delay of 1504 days.

8. This Court is conscious that the period of delay is immaterial in condoning, rather, the sufficient cause is the material one and if the litigant concerned is in a position to substantiate the delay base upon the sufficient cause, then irrespective of the period of delay, it is to be condoned.

9. It also requires to refer herein that what is the meaning of ‘sufficient cause’. The consideration of meaning of ‘sufficient cause’ has been made in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [(2013) 14 SCC 81] wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraphs 9 to 15 hereunder:-

“9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word “sufficient” embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, “sufficient cause” means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has “not acted diligently” or “remained inactive”. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine w