Kavita Sandeep Babar @ Kavita Dashrath Ghadage vs Sandeep Jaganath Babar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kavita Sandeep Babar @ Kavita Dashrath Ghadage vs Sandeep Jaganath Babar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the Family Court, Sangli order condoning the Respondent-husband's delay of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days in filing 'say' to the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings deserves interference.

Court's answer

The approach of the learned Trial Judge in facilitating a decision on merits is proper and cannot be faulted with; it is desirable that the final adjudication between husband and wife takes place on merits and not on technical grounds.

Ratio / Principle

Delay condonation, by its very nature, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula.

Key takeaways

Since the discretion was exercised by the learned Trial Judge, this is not a fit case to interfere in the supervisory writ jurisdiction so as to substitute that discretion.ratio¶¶30
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order condoning delay, and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶¶31
All contentions, including the alleged attempt to fill in lacuna and the rejection of the amendment application, shall be considered on their own merits in accordance with law; the order is without prejudice to the parties' rights and contentions on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by the wife against the order dated 18.07.2025 of the Judge, Family Court, Sangli (below Exh.26 in Petition A. No.385/2020) condoning the husband's delay of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days in filing his 'say' to the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings. Held: delay condonation depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and admits of no straight jacket formula. The Trial Judge's discretion — exercised to enable a decision on merits, while subjecting the husband to Rs.20,000/- costs, and in the backdrop of the Supreme Court-directed suspension of limitation (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022), the husband's bereavement, and both the divorce and restitution proceedings running concurrently — is proper and cannot be faulted; the supervisory writ jurisdiction will not substitute that discretion. Petition dismissed; parties directed to co-operate in the pending proceedings without unnecessary adjournments; all contentions, including the alleged attempt to fill in lacuna and the rejection of the amendment application, expressly left open to be considered on their own merits.

903 WP-11202-2025 @.doc

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2026.02.24 17:51:01 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11202 OF 2025

Kavita sandeep Babar @ Kavita Dashrath Ghadage …..Petitioner Vs.

Sandeep Jaganath Babar …..Respondent

Mr. Ranjeeth H. Patil a/w. Mr. Dhavalsinh V. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan a/w. Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 24^th FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :

This writ petition is filed by wife challenging order dated 18.07.2025 passed by Judge, Family Court, Sangli below Exh.26 in Petition A. No.385/2020. By the said impugned order, the application filed by the Respondent-husband for condonation of delay in filing ‘say’ to the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings, is allowed by condoning delay of 04 years, 08 months and 02 days.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner-wife submitted that there is no proper explanation for the delay. He submitted that despite the fact that the Respondent-husband had filed divorce proceeding which were being prosecuted, the husband chose not to file any say in the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings. He submitted that after the ‘no W.S.’ order was passed on 04.02.2022, the restitution of conjugal

Husen 1

903 WP-11202-2025 @.doc

rights proceedings were kept for final disposal, when the Respondenthusband made the present application seeking delay condonation. He submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court has not given proper reasons for condonation of delay. He further submitted that by filing say to the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings, the Respondent-husband is trying to fill up the lacuna which has resulted due to the rejection of amendment application by husband in the divorce proceedings.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondenthusband submitted that though there is delay in filing the application, the same was not intentional. He submitted that the chronology of events clearly indicates that the proceedings for the restitution of conjugal rights as well as the divorce proceedings are filed in the same month. That the husband always intended to diligently contest the proceedings. He submitted that the Respondenthusband had filed Vakalatnama in February, 2020. However, thereafter the Corona pandemic started and the Respondent lost his father, due to which the Respondent was under shock. He submitted that he could not attend the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings also because, the proceedings were transferred in the interregnum from the regular Court to the Family Court at Sangli which was established at the relevant time. He submitted that the proceedings are already at the stage of conducting cross-examination of Petitioner-wife in the restitution of conjugal rights proceedings. He submits that delay is already condoned and parties are given opportunity to contest on merits and such order should not be

2

Husen

903 WP-11202-2025 @.doc

interfered with.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the Respondent-husband had filed Vakalatnama in February, 2020 and soon thereafter the COVID pandemic struck. It is a matter of record that from 15 March 2020 till 28 February 2022, the period of limitation was suspended under the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent lost his father in the interregnum.

The learned Trial Judge has considered the relevant dates and has held that the Respondent-husband had filed divorce petition and the same was being prosecuted by remaining present before the Court. After considering the material on record, the learned Trial Judge has exercised discretion by holding that it is necessary to give opportunity to both the sides to decide the matter on merits. The learned Trial Court has also held that if delay is not condoned then it may lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The learned Trial Judge has subjected the Respondent-husband to costs of Rs.20,000/- to compensate the other side.

Having considered the impugned order and the reasons stated therein, in my view, the approach of the learned Trial Judge to facilitate the decision on merits, is proper and cannot be faulted with. The dispute is admittedly between husband and wife. It is desirable that the final adjudication takes place on merits and not on technical grounds.

3

Husen

903 WP-11202-2025 @.doc

Delay condonation, by its very nature, depends on facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula. In the present case, since the discretion is exercised by the learned Trial Judge, this is not a fit case to interfere in the supervisory writ jurisdiction to substitute the discretion. It is common ground that both the divorce petition as well as restitution of conjugal rights are proceeding on merits and evidence is in progress.

In that view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Parties are directed to co-operate with the disposal of the pending proceedings without taking unnecessary adjournments in the matter. It is clarified that present order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties on merits. All contentions, including attempt to fill in lacuna and rejection of amendment application, shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law.

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

4

Husen