Allowed¶22

S.Vidhya v. R.Sivakumar

Madras HC15 Jul 2026CMP/17465/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 400 days; Order IV Rule 9(4) Appellate Side Rules; Section 5 Limitation Act; sufficient cause; acceptability of explanation sole criterion; length of delay immaterial; Office Clerk misplaced returned papers; Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia) dissolution of marriage; Section 9 restitution of conjugal rights; HMOP.No.254 of 2017; HMOP.No.1884 of 2022; S.Vidhya v. R.Sivakumar; Madras High Court; CMP Nos. 17465 & 17466 of 2026 in CMA SR Nos.19758 & 19759 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 400 days in representing C.M.A.SR.Nos.19758 & 19759 of 2025 condoned; Registry directed to number the appeals if they are otherwise in order ¶22

S.Vidhya Vs R.Sivakumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMP No. 17465 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

CMP Nos. 17465 & 17466 of 2026 in CMA SR Nos.19758 & 19759 of 2025

¶7

S.Vidhya

¶8

Petitioner in both petitions

¶9

¶10

R.Sivakumar Respondent in both petitions

¶11

Common Prayer: Petition filed under Order IV Rule 9(4) of Appellate Side Rules to condone the delay of 400 days in representing the C.M.A.SR.Nos.19758 & 19759 of 2025.

¶12

In both petitions

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.A.Ajmalkhan COMMON ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

¶15

These petitions have been filed by the wife/petitioner seeking to condone

¶16

the delay of 400 days in representing the appeals as against the dismissal of petition filed for dissolution of marriage and granting of decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband.

¶17

The wife has filed HMOP.No.254 of 2017 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage and the husband haas filed HMOP.No.1884 of 2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Challenging the impugned decree and orders, the present appeals have been filed along with petitions to condone the delay of 400 days in representing the appeals.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

CMP No. 17465 of 2026

¶20

The reasons assigned in the petition for such delay are that the petitions were returned on 07.06.2025 for certain compliances and the Office Clerk has kept the bundle for rectification of compliance. Since, he has kept the bundle with old disposed matter, now, only, they were able to find out the returned papers. Thus, the delay.

¶21

It is well settled that that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. In the case in hand, the reason assigned by the petitioner is that their Office Clerk has kept the bundle in old disposed cases, hence, they could not represent the case bundle in time. Such explanation in view of this Court is satisfactory and the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in representing the appeals.

¶22