THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR I.A.No.2 of 2025 IN/AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL No.96 of 2025 Mrs. A. Anasuya, learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Zainab Khan, learned counsel for the respondent COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is for condonation of a delay of 764 days in filing the Family Court Appeal from an order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the Principal Family Court at Secunderabad in I.A.No.448 of 2021 in O.P.No.15 of 2006.

2. The applicant/appellant prays for condonation of delay on the grounds stated below:

2.1 Paragraphs 1 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. contain various statements regarding the merits of the Appeal including the fact that the applicant/appellant made payment of arrears of interim maintenance of Rs.85,400/- by 31.01.2020 and filed Postal Money Order Receipts through which the interim maintenance amounts were sent to the respondent.

2.2 Paragraph 7 is the only paragraph in which the applicant/appellant gives the reasons for the delay of 764 days in filing the Family Court Appeal. The reasons are as follows:

“After receiving the un-marked documents, I was under trauma and mental agony and also underwent a surgery for BMG on 26.07.2023 and I was not in a position to instruct my advocate for taking necessary further steps. Immediately after my recovery from the surgery, now, I am filing the present FCA being aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.No.448 of 2021 dated 08.08.2022. The delay of 764 days caused in this process is neither willful nor wanton and is only for the reasons explained supra.”

3. The affidavit does not contain any other reason for condoning the delay of 764 days.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant submits that the delay should be condoned since there are substantive issues which are required to be considered.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the Certified Copy of the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 was made available on 27.08.2022. The applicant/appellant applied for the return of the Postal Money Order Receipts in I.A.No.513 of 2022 in F.C.O.P.No.67 of 2015 after the passing of the impugned order i.e., after August 2022. The learned Family Court permitted return of the Postal Money Order Receipts on 12.05.2023. Counsel further submits that on 17.08.2023, the applicant/appellant filed a Criminal Revision Case (Crl.R.C.No.521 of 2023) in this Court against an order passed by the learned Principal Family Court, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, in M.C.No.61 of 2016 on 30.06.2023.

6. We have carefully perused the affidavit filed in support of the I.A as well as the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent.

We have also considered the rival submissions.

7. Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 provides for extension of time to file applications or appeals beyond the prescribed limitation period, subject to the Court being satisfied with the sufficiency of cause shown by the appellant/applicant.

8. In the present case, the only reason given by the applicant/appellant is that the applicant had to undergo surgery on 26.07.2023. The surgery is described as ‘BMG’. The applicant has not provided the full form of the abbreviation. The other reason provided is that the applicant/appellant was in trauma as a result of the surgery. Apart from other lacunae in the affidavit, there is no explanation given by the applicant/appellant for the delay between 27.08.2022 and 26.07.2023 i.e., from the date on which the Certified Copy of the impugned order was made available until the surgery, and then again from 26.07.2023 to 27.12.2024. Hence, there are two large chunks of delay which remain unexplained by the appellant.

9. Under section 19(3) of The Family Courts Act, 1984, every appeal shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a Family Court.

10. Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 requires the applicant/ap