Ms. Mohini Suyog Dahiwadkar v. Mr. Suyog Vasudeo Ddahiwadkar
Bombay HCCAM/122/2007
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The High Court of Bombay admitted an appeal against a rejected maintenance application after condoning a 123-day delay. The court granted the respondent four weeks to file a reply.
What did the court decide?
Delay condoned; appeal admitted; respondent granted four weeks to file reply.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
: 1 :
¶2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
¶3
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2007
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.123 OF 2007
¶4
IN
¶5
FAMILY COURT APPEAL (ST.) NO.3027 OF 2007
¶6
Mohini Suyog Dahiwadkar...Applicant
V/s.
Suyog Vasudeo Dahiwadkar...Respondent
¶7
Mr.H.P. Vyas and Mr.Ajit Kulkarni, Advocates, for the
Applicant. .
Ms.Seema Sarnaik, Advocate, for the Respondent.
¶8
P.C. :
¶9
1.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
¶10
2.This Civil Applicationis filed for
¶11
condonation of delay by the applicant. The application
for maintenance has been rejected. The reason given in
the application for preferring the Appeal after delay
of 123 days is as the talks of compromise were going on
between the parties, however the said talks of
compromise have failed and, therefore, the applicant
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
AI extract
Whether the delay in filing the appeal for maintenance is condonable.
Whether the appeal should be admitted and interlocutory relief sanctioned.
Whether the respondent should be granted time to file a reply.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- applicant
Mohini Suyog Dahiwadkar
- respondent
Suyog Vasudeo Dahiwadkar
Coram
AI extract
A.A. Sayed
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court