Allowed

Sharmila Ahlawat v. Rajesh Ahlawat

Bombay HC18 Jan 2024IA/13583/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An interim application filed to condone a delay of 117 days in filing a Family Court Appeal was disposed of. The Court found sufficient cause for the delay, which was attributed to the appellant's work schedule and the time taken to obtain and receive the certified copy of the impugned judgment. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was allowed to be numbered.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 117 days condoned; Family Court Appeal directed to be numbered subject to removal of office objections within four weeks.

Sharmila Ahlawat Vs Rajesh Ahlawat — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

21-IA-13583-2023== FCAL-15878-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13583 OF 2023 IN

¶4

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA FAMILY COURT APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 15622 OF 2023 SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2024.01.25 17:01:45+0530 Sharmila Ahlawat ..Applicant In the matter between : Sharmila Ahlawat ..Appellant Versus Rajesh Ahlawat …Respondent Mr.Anuj Tiwari h/f Adv. Seema Sarnaik, Advocate for Applicant/Appellant. Ms.Firdaus Moosa i/b Mr.Hrishikesh Amembal, Advocate for Respondent.

¶5

CORAM : B.P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶6

DATE : JANUARY 18, 2024.

¶7

P C :

¶8

The Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation of delay of

¶9

117 days in filing the above Family Court Appeal. The condonation of

¶10

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶11

Page 1 of 4 January 18, 2024

¶12

21-IA-13583-2023== FCAL-15878-2023.doc

¶13

delay has been vehemently opposed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-husband.

¶14

The argument on behalf of the Respondent-husband is that there is absolutely no case made out for condoning the delay and no sufficient cause is shown, and therefore, the above application ought to be dismissed.

¶15

We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband. We have also carefully perused the above Interim Application. The explanation given for the delay is set out in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the Interim Application. For the sake of convenience, the same are reproduced hereunder :

¶16

The Applicant submits that due to her work schedule and other family commitment, the Applicant was not able to contact her advocate for challenging the impugned order dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai in Petition No. 883 of 2016. It was only after the Applicant was served notice of the FCA No. 20 of 2023 filed by the Respondent challenging the judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 in PA No. 597 of 2016 and PA No. 883 of 2016 was served on the Applicant on 27.03.2023, the Applicant contacted her present Advocate on 29.03.2023, her Advocate informed her that Appeal should have been filed within 90 days from the date of the said order i.e. on or before 24.02.2023. The Applicant submits that her present Advocate also informed her that certified copies of the common judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 and Decree passed in PA No. 597 of 2016 and PA No. 883 of 2016 would be required so as to file the above Appeal and for purpose of

¶17

Page 2 of 4 January 18, 2024

¶18

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶19

21-IA-13583-2023== FCAL-15878-2023.doc

¶20

computation of period of limitation without which she will not be allowed to file the Appeal. The Applicant further submits that her Advocate at the time of hearing of FCA No. 20 of 2023, had orally informed the Hon’ble High Court that the Applicant is in process of filing Appeal challenging the order dated 21.10.2022.

¶21

The Applicant submits that she applied for certified copy of judgment and order dated 21.10.2022 on 06.12.2022. The same was ready on 11.01.2023 and delivered on 12.04.2023. There is a delay of 117 days in filing the above Appeal.

¶22

The Applicant submits that in the circumstances, as stated hereinabove, the delay of 116 days has been caused inadvertently in filing the above Appeal and the same may be condoned. The Applicant has a good case on merits. No harm and prejudice would be caused to Respondent if delay is condoned. In the interest of justice, prayers prayed for be granted. Grave harm and prejudice would be caused to Applicant if delay is not condoned, which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

¶23

We may mention that though in paragraph 3, it is mentioned that the certified copy was delivered to the Appellant on ‘12^th April 2023’, the same is incorrect and the same was actually delivered on ‘12^th January 2024’.

¶24

Considering what is stated in the Application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. In these circumstances, the delay is condoned and the Registry is directed to number the above Family Court Appeal subject to the Applicant/Appellant removing all other office objections, within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the above Family Court Appeal

¶25

Page 3 of 4 January 18, 2024

¶26

Shraddha Talekar, PS

¶27

21-IA-13583-2023== FCAL-15878-2023.doc

¶28

shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶29

The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. No order as to

¶30

costs.

¶31

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶32

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. ] [ B.P. COLABAWALLA, J. ]

¶33

Page 4 of 4 January 18, 2024

¶34

Shraddha Talekar, PS

Sharmila Ahlawat v. Rajesh Ahlawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila Ahlawat v. Rajesh Ahlawat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Phoenix Arc Private Limited Acting in Its Capacity as Trustee of Phoenix Trust Fy 14-13 Scheme-B vs State of Maharashtra

Capri Global Capital Limited Vs Ms Jyoti Kadam District Magistrate and Ors.

Baban Mohana Jare Since Decd. Thr. Lrs Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department and Ors.

Mehajabeen Shakir Khan Vs Shakir Matiulla Khan

Sharmila Ahlawat Vs Rajesh Ahlawat

Nitin Chimbaikar Vs Ms Small Industries Bank of India