Disposed

Mrs. Vandana Ramchandra Jaiswal v. Suresh Ramajor Jaiswal

Bombay HC2 Feb 2024IA/19438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought condonation of a delay of over two years in filing a Family Court Appeal against an order passed in August 2019, citing late service and the Covid-19 lockdown. The Division Bench found sufficient cause shown and condoned the delay, directing the Registry to number the appeal subject to office objections.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2 years and 208 days in filing the Family Court Appeal condoned; appeal to be numbered after office objections removed.

Mrs. Vandana Ramchandra Jaiswal Vs Suresh Ramajor… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKARDate: PALKAR 2024.02.05 10:54:41 +0530 14.IA.19438.2022.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19438 OF 2022 IN

¶5

FAMILY COURT APPEAL (L) NO.14633 OF 2022

¶6

Mrs. Vandana Ramchandra Jaiswal .... Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mrs. Vandana Ramchandra Jaiswal .... Appellant Versus

¶7

Mr. Suresh Ramajor Jaiswal

¶8

.... Respondent

¶9

Mr. Muralidharan V.C., Advocate for Applicant/AppellantWife.

¶10

None present for Respondent (Though Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Prashant Rathod, Dundapa Patil & Meenakshi Kalwar).

¶11

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 02, 2024

¶12

P. C.

¶13

The above Interim Application is filed seeking a condonation

¶14

of delay of 2 years and 208 days in filing the above Family Court Appeal.

¶15

Page 1 of 3 FEBRUARY 02, 2024

¶16

Aarti Palkar

¶17

14.IA.19438.2022.doc

¶18

In the Interim Application, it is stated that though the impugned order was passed on 22^nd August, 2019, it was served on the Applicant/Appellant only on 18^th December, 2019. It is the specific case of the Appellant that she was not served with the summons and the copy of the petition filed before the Family Court and that the Respondent obtained the service report by fraud and misrepresentation. It is now common knowledge that from March 2020, there was a National Lockdown due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The present appeal has been filed on 30^th May, 2022.

¶19

After perusing the above Interim Application and after taking into consideration all facts, we are satisfied that sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay. In these circumstances, the delay is condoned.

¶20

Now that the delay is condoned, the Registry shall proceed to number the above Appeal subject to the Appellant removing all other office objections within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the above Appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Court.

¶21

The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

Page 2 of 3 FEBRUARY 02, 2024

¶23

Aarti Palkar

¶24

14.IA.19438.2022.doc

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

Page 3 of 3 FEBRUARY 02, 2024

¶28

Aarti Palkar

Mrs. Vandana Ramchandra Jaiswal v. Suresh Ramajor Jaiswal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Vandana Ramchandra Jaiswal v. Suresh Ramajor Jaiswal

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

Devv Ajay Bhatt Lh of Late Ajay Bhatt vs the Board of Directors of Chembur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd.

Prajakta Sandesh Mhatre vs Sandesh Maruti Mhatre

Manoj Keru Bhosale and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Khadkeshwar Hatcheries Ltd. and 2 Ors. vs Idbi Bank Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Mr. Nandkishore Ghanshyamlal Vs Mrs.Priti Nandkishore

Mrs.Priti Nandkishore Vs Mr. Nandkishore Ghanshyamlal