HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

****

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

I.A.NO.2 OF 2025

IN/AND

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.174 OF 2025

DATED: 03.12.2025

Between :

Garimella Krishna Mohan alias Garimella Krishna,

S/o. Late Ramdas Bhaskara Garimella.

…Appellant

Versus

Rajiva Garimella alias Garimella S Rajeeva,

D/o. S. Satyanarayana Rao.

…Respondent

Mr. S. Raghu Ram, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Sridevi, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant.

Mr. K. Jagadeeshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya

1. The appellant seeks condonation of delay of 35 days in filing

of the present Family Court Appeal.

2. Paragraph No.5 of the IA (in both the IAs. filed before the Division Bench) states that the prayer is for condonation of delay of

76 days. The reason given for the delay consists of the appellant’s health condition during the relevant period. The second reason is that the appellant was unable to contact his counsel to provide necessary instructions for filing an Appeal. The third reason is that the appellant was explained by counsel that there is a potential conflict between the limitation contemplated for Matrimonial Appeals under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Family Courts Act, 1984.

3. The impugned order and decree forming the subject matter of the Family Court Appeal is dated 13.06.2025.

4. The Appeal was filed on 10.11.2025. The delay of 76 days was calculated on the basis of section 28(4) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which specifies that an Appeal under section 28 shall be preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the decree or order. Section 19(3) of The Family Courts Act, 1984 however specifies that Appeals under section 19 shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.

5. We are of the considered view that the period of limitation provided under The Family Courts Act, 1984 will take precedence over The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 since the former is a special statute and governs the limitation period for all Appeals filed under section 19 of the said Act. Section 20 of The Family Courts Act, 1984, declares that the Act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law.

6. Apart from the appellant erroneously calculating 76 days (mentioned as 35 days in the IA) on the basis of section 28(4) of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is also no evidence in support of the reasons given for the delay, i.e., the health condition of the appellant and the appellant failing to contact his counsel. Indeed, the potential conflict between The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The Family Courts Act, 1984, should have persuaded the appellant to approach the Court at an earlier point of time.

7. We hence do not find any reason to condone the delay.

8. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed.

9. Consequently, FCA.No.174 of 2025, along with all connected applications, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 03.12.2025 NDS