Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned

counsel for respondent and perused the appeal papers

including an affidavit in support of IA No.1/2023 filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay

of 4653 days in preferring the appeal.

2.

It is submitted that the appellant married the

respondent on 13.08.1995 as per Hindu customs and rituals.

After sometime, respondent/husband has driven out the

appellant/wife, which made the appellant to file petition

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short,

'Act, 1955') for restitution of conjugal rights. The said

petition was filed in the year 2005 before the Family Court,

Belagavi, which was numbered as MC No.1/2005. In the

said proceedings, the petitioner herself examined as PW1

and marked documents as Ex.P1 to P5, whereas respondent

examined himself as RW1 and marked documents as Ex.R1

to R17. The Family Court after hearing both the parties and

on scrutiny of the material on record, dismissed the petition

filed under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 holding that the

- 3 -

appellant has failed to prove the marriage with respondent.

Against dismissal of the petition filed under Section 9 of the

Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights, present appeal is

filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for

short, 'Act, 1984') before this Court on 8.6.2022.

3.

There is inordinate delay of 4653 days in

preferring the present appeal.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the appellant has very much struggled in life and she

was not in a position to prefer appeal within time. It is

submitted that the appellant had to initiate several

proceedings against the respondent for his conduct and

behaviour towards the appellant. Learned counsel referring

to the affidavit averments in support of the application for

condonation of delay submits that the wife has already

suffered damages due to illegal acts committed by the

respondent and his family members. He further submits that

the appellant had also suffered mental and physical torture,

due to which, her health condition deteriorated. Learned

counsel also submits that the appellant was admitted to the

- 4 -

hospital as inpatient. In paragraph-6 and 7 of the affidavit,

the

appellant

has

stated

that

she

had

filed

Crl.Misc.No.80/2009 before the IV Addl. JMFC Court,

Belagavi and Crl.Misc.No.230/2018 on the file of III JMFC

Court, Belagavi seeking relief of maintenance. It is further

stated that the appellant has also filed complaint in Crime

No.18/2022 before III JMFC Court, Belagavi for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 read with Section 34

of IPC. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant is

not well acquainted with the Court proceedings and on

advice from the counsel at Belagavi and Dharwad, present

appeal is being presented.

5.

On the contrary, learned counsel Sri.Prashant F

Goudar appearing for the respondent submits that the appeal

is filed with inordinate delay of 4653 days i.e. more than 14

years and the appellant has not made out any ground to

condone the said inordinate delay. Learned counsel would

further submit that it is not the case of the appellant that she

was not aware of the proceedings. But the proceedings

culminating in dismissal of petition filed under Section 9 of

- 5 -

the Act, 1955 was well within the knowledge of the appellant

and she subsequently initiated several criminal proceedings.

It is his submission that the petition for restitution of

conjugal rights came to be dismissed under impugned

judgment and decree dated 28.06.2007 and subsequent to

dismissal of the Section 9 petition, the appellant has initiated

four criminal proceedings. As such, he submits that there

are no bonafide reasons in the affidavit filed by the appellant

for condonation of delay. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the

appeal only on the ground of delay.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the appeal p