Allowed

Rekha Ravikant Gadkari v. Ravikant Punjaram Gadkari

Bombay HC14 Oct 2016CA/5967/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a matrimonial dispute, the applicant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a Family Court decree granting restitution of conjugal rights. The High Court, considering medical evidence of the applicant's illness and the need for substantial justice, allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

The civil application seeking condonation of delay was allowed, thereby permitting the appeal against the Family Court judgment.

Rekha Ravikant Gadkari Vs Ravikant Punjaram Gadkari — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

8-ca5967-15.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

8 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5967/2015 IN FCAST/10369/2015

¶4

REKHA RAVIKANT GADKARI
VERSUS
RAVIKANT PUNJARAM GADKARI

¶5

...

¶6

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S. H. Panchal h/for Mr. Garud
V.B.

¶7

Advocate for Respondent : Mr. P. B. Waghmare

¶8

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:
14th October, 2016

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

1. This is an application seeking condonation of

¶11

delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and
order passed by the Family Court thereby allowing the
application of the present respondent seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. The learned counsel

¶12

for the applicant states that the applicant could not

¶13

prefer appeal within time as the applicant was
suffering from illness and taking treatment. Even

¶14

after passing the decree for conjugal rights, the
present applicant went for cohabitation on 05.08.2013
along-with child but was ill-treated and on 09.08.2013

¶15

was driven by the present non-applicant. According to

¶16

the learned counsel, the applicant is constrained to

¶17

reside at her parents house. The papers showing the

¶18

1/3

¶19

8-ca5967-15.odt

¶20

treatment being taken by the present applicant are
placed on record.

¶21

2. Mr. Waghmaere, learned counsel for the non-
applicant opposes the application for condonation of
delay and submits that false averments are made by the
applicant in the application for condonation of delay.
The applicant was prosecuting the other proceedings and
the ground of illness is only created for filing the
application for condonation of delay. The applicant
could have filed appeal within the stipulated period.
No sufficient cause is stated in that regard. The
present non-applicant has filed the petition for
divorce and as a counter-blast, the present appeal
along-with application for condonation delay is filed
by the applicant. The same is without any basis.

¶22

3. We have considered the submissions. The present

¶23

proceeding arises out of the matrimonial dispute. The
relationship between the parties is not disputed. In
other proceedings, even the mediation has failed. The

¶24

averment of the applicant is that after the decree for
restitution was passed, the applicant along-with child
had gone to the house of the non-applicant to cohabit
but after 4/5 days, have been driven out. The said

¶25

2/3

¶26

averments certainly are denied by the non-applicant.
We need not go into the merits of the said averments
as, if the appeal is heard on merits, the respective
arguments can be considered in appeal.

¶27

4. The applicant has filed on record the medical
papers showing the treatment being taken by the
applicant. It is trite that whenever technical
consideration and cause for substantial justice are
pitted against each other, the cause for substantial
justice has to be sub-served.

¶28

5. Considering the nature of the dispute, the

¶29

relations between the parties, the grounds mentioned
for condonation of delay and upon going through the
medical papers produced on record, we are inclined to
condone the delay. In view of that the civil
application seeking condonation of delay is allowed.

¶30

6. Civil application disposed of.

¶31

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶32

JPC

¶33

3/3

Rekha Ravikant Gadkari v. Ravikant Punjaram Gadkari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rekha Ravikant Gadkari v. Ravikant Punjaram Gadkari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishna Rakhmaji Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangita Uttamrao Sathe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajiya Begum Mohd Ibrahim Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Shivaji Malhari Warkad Vs Zilla Parishad Nanded and Ors.

Shaikh Jamila Begum and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Saibaba Sansthan Trust through Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others