HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_

IA NO 01 of 2025 in MAT APP NO. 18 of 2025 Amrita Ruhi Das (Rabi Das), aged 32 years W/o- Sri Pradip Rabidas D/o Shri Mohanlal Ruhi Das R/o Vill and P.O. Krishanpur, P.S. and Sub-

Division- Dharmanagar, North Tripura.

...... Applicant(s)

V E R S U S Pradip Rabi Das, S/o Sri Jawarlal Rabi Das R/o Sonamura Choumuhani P.S.

R.K Pur, Udaipur, Dist- Gomati, Tripura.

………….Respondent(s)

For Applicant (s) : Mr. P Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate., Ms. A Debbarma, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suraj Dhanuk, Advocate, Ms. Saswati Nag, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT =O=R=D=E=R=

11/12/2025 This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 50 days in preferring this appeal under the Family Court Act, 1984 challenging the judgment dt. 07.02.2025 /18.02.2025 passed by the learned Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura in T.S (RCR) 27 of 2022.

It is the contention of the petitioner that she belongs to the marginalized group of the society, that she is only Madhyamik Pass and she does not have knowledge of the court proceedings, and she does not have help because her parents who are old.

According to the petitioner, the decree in the above case was passed on 18.02.2025 and the application was filed for getting certified copy of the judgment on 13.05.2025 which was made available on 04.06.2025.

Thereafter, the petitioner along with her father met the advocate, who advised for filing of this appeal and after taking the steps of drafting, the appeal came to be filed on 23.07.2025.

It is also stated that the petitioner could not visit the advocate on the date which was agreed upon, i.e.20.06.2025 as her minor son was suffering from high fever, which caused the delay in filing the appeal.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent opposing the condonation for delay.

It is stated that the petitioner has failed to give any explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and the petitioner should explain every single day‟s delay.

Counsel for the respondent has also placed a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ramkumar Choudhury in SLP(C) Diary No. 48636/2024 dated 24.11.2024.

In the above case, the State of Madhya Pradesh had preferred a Second Appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and sought condonation of delay of 5 years 10 months and 16 days in filing the same. The High Court had refused to condone the delay and disposed the Second Appeal.

Aggrieved with the said judgment of High Court, the State of Madhya Pradesh had approached the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, held that where a case has been presented before the court beyond the period of limitation, the petitioner had to explain as to what was the “sufficient cause” which prevented him or her to approach the court within the period of limitation. It observed that the discretion to condone delay has to be exercised judiciously and based on facts and circumstances of each case, and that the expression „sufficient cause‟ cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party.

In the instant case, it cannot be said that the delay in filling the appeal by the petitioner was on account of inaction, negligence or lack of bona fide.

Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to the marginalized community and she has a minor son and she is not fully familiar with the court procedure and did not get the help of her old parents. Also the case of the petitioner is that her son fell ill on 20.06.2025 and, therefore, she could not meet her advocate on 07.07.2025.

We are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for not filling the matrimonial appeal within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

IA No.01 of 2025 stands disposed of.

MAT APP NO.18