Dr Prasoon Kumar Vs Chetna Kumar — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dr Prasoon Kumar Vs Chetna Kumar — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

I.A. No.12934 of 2025 allowed and 54 days' delay in filing F.A. No.77 of 2026 condoned; F.A. No.77 of 2026 dismissed as not pressed; Mrs. Vani Kumari permitted to contest F.A. No.135 of 2025 as counsel for the respondent on the strength of Vakalatnama; F.A. No.135 of 2025 (already admitted) directed to be listed under the appropriate heading.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 54 days in filing F.A. No.77 of 2026 should be condoned (issue of limitation). +2 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the averments made in the condonation application, the court held that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

Ratio / Principle

I.A. No.12934 of 2025 is allowed and the 54 days' delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.

Key takeaways

Considering the submission made on behalf of the appellant in F.A. No.77 of 2026 — that the quantum of alimony was challenged but the entire amount of alimony has already been deposited before the learned trial court and the appeal is not being pressed — the instant appeal F.A. No.77 of 2026 is dismissed as not pressed.ratio¶24
Mrs. Vani Kumari has every right to contest F.A. No.135 of 2025, since she is representing the respondent Chetna Kumar in that appeal on the strength of Vakalatnama.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi — Order No.05 dated 16th June, 2026 (Coram: Sujit Narayan Prasad and Sanjay Prasad, JJ.) dealing jointly with cross-appeals F.A. No.135 of 2025 (Chetna Kumar v. Dr. Prasoon Kumar) and F.A. No.77 of 2026 (Dr. Prasoon Kumar v. Chetna Kumar): (i) I.A. No.12934 of 2025 allowed — the court held the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause and condoned the 54 days' delay in preferring the appeal; (ii) since counsel submitted that although the quantum of alimony was challenged the entire amount of alimony had already been deposited before the learned trial court, F.A. No.77 of 2026 was dismissed as not pressed; (iii) counsel Mrs. Vani Kumari was held to have every right to contest F.A. No.135 of 2025, representing the respondent on the strength of Vakalatnama; (iv) F.A. No.135 of 2025, already admitted for hearing, was directed to be listed under the appropriate heading.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.135 of 2025

-----

Chetna Kumar … … Appellant Versus Dr. Prasoon Kumar … … Respondent `-------

With

F.A. No.77 of 2026

-----

Dr. Prasoon Kumar, aged 66 years, S/o Birendra Kumar Narayan Singh, R/O – 41 Jhelum Apartment, Rajendra Nagar, P.O. & P.s. Rajendra Nagar, District Patna (Bihar).

… … Appellant

Versus

Chetna Kumar, W/O Dr. Prasoon Kumar at present residing at 185 – C, Vidyalaya Marg, Ashok Nagar, P.O. & P.s. Ashok Nagar, District Ranchi.… … Respondent `-------

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD

[F.A. No.135 of 2025]
For the Appellant	: Mr. Ishan Ashish, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
[F.A. No.77 of 2026]
For the Appellant	: Mrs. Vani Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent	: Mr. Ishan Ashish, Advocate ------

Order No. 05 / Dated 16^th June, 2026

1. Both the appeals have been directed to be listed together, as would be evident from order dated 8^th June, 2026.

I.A. No.12934 of 2025 in F.A. No.77 of 2026

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue of limitation.

3. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the instant appeal.

1

4. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

5. Accordingly, I.A. No.12934 of 2025 is allowed and the 54 days’ delay in preferring the appeal is condoned. F.A. No.77 of 2026

6. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in F.A. No.77 of 2026 has submitted that the quantum of alimony has been challenged in the instant appeal but the entire amount of alimony has already been deposited before the learned trial court, therefore, she is not pressing the instant appeal.

7. She has further submitted that she may be given right to contest the appeal preferred by the respondent of the present appeal, namely, Chetna Kumar, being F.A. No.135 of 2025.

8. Considering the submission made on behalf of the appellant in F.A. No.77 of 2026, being represented by Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel, the instant appeal [F.A. No.77 of 2026] is dismissed as not pressed .

9. So far as the submission made by Mrs. Vani Kumari that she may be given right to contest the appeal being F.A. No.135 of 2025 in which she has appeared to represent the respondent is concerned, she has every right to contest the

2

aforesaid appeal, i.e., F.A. No.135 of 2025, since she is representing the respondent on the strength of

Vakalatnama.

F.A. No.135 of 2025

10. The present appeal has already been admitted for hearing.

11. Let this matter be listed under the appropriate heading.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Sanjay Prasad, J.)

Date : 16^th June, 2026

Birendra/

3