THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO I.A.NO.2 OF 2024 IN/AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.223 OF 2024 Mr. N Hari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

Mr. N Vishal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The appellant has filed I.A.No.2 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 553 days in filing the Appeal against the order passed by the learned Family Court on 26.12.2022.

2. The appeal was filed on 02.08.2024.

3. On 04.03.2025, we noted that the reasons given by the appellant in I.A.No.2 of 2024 do not satisfy the requirements under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 and paragraph 3 of the I.A. does not provide any reasons for the delay of 553 days in filing the Family Court Appeal (FCA).

4. On 04.03.2025, the Court accordingly gave the appellant an opportunity to file an improved affidavit to explain the delay in filing the FCA.

5. On 18.03.2025, the Court further recorded that the improved affidavit fails to disclose any reasons for the condonation of the delay of 553 days in filing the FCA.

6. We find from the records that the appellant has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant however is unaware as to why I.A.No.1 of 2025 was filed before this Court.

7. On perusal of the grounds given for explaining the delay of 553 days in the improved affidavit, we find that the only reason given by the appellant in paragraph 3 of the affidavit is that the appellant’s counsel did not inform the appellant that the Appeal had been set ex parte by the Trial Court on 08.12.2022. Paragraph 3 also states that the appellant’s mother is a senior citizen and suffering from old age ailments, and that the appellant was hence unable to contact his counsel.

8. We do not find any other ground for explaining the delay after 26.12.2022, i.e., the date of the impugned order, till the filing of the FCA on 02.08.2024.

9. There is hence no cause shown in satisfaction of section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963.

10. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent has been denied an opportunity to see the children of the parties or being given visitation rights, i.e., from the time of the filing of the G.W.O.P. on 03.02.2021. The respondent’s deprivation is notwithstanding the fact that the respondent has been given custody of the children by the impugned order dated

26.12.2022.

11. To reiterate, the Trial Court allowed the respondent’s petition for custody of the minor children and gave the respondent custody of the children till they became adults. The appellant (the respondent in the Family Court) was given the right to visit the minor children every fortnight.

12. Counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the respondent filed an Execution Petition in July 2023, but the Trial Court has not passed any orders in the Execution Petition due to the pendency of the present Appeal.

13. The only consideration relevant before us is whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the present Appeal. We do not find any satisfactory reasons provided by the appellant for explaining the delay of

553 days in filing the FCA despite being given an opportunity to file an improved affidavit.

14. I.A.No.2 of 2024 and F.C.A.No.223 of 2024 are accordingly dismissed.

All connected applications are dismissed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J Date: 07.04.2025 NDS