The High Court · 2025

l\Iailaram Srinivas, s/o Papaiah, aged about 41 years, r/o Life Care Hospital, beside Roop Shankar Hospital, Sbinagar i-ocality Of Karimnagar Town and District. ...APPELLANT ( Respondent) in FCA and Petitioner in l.A.No. 2 ot 2024 AND l\ilailaram Rajitha, w/o Srinivas, aged about 34 years,llo H.No.2-'10-656, J-yothingar Locality of Kirimnagar Town and-District Presently r/o Nagunoor village of Karimriagar Rural Manda{ of Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENT ( Petitioner ) in both lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay 553 days in filing the above appeal against the order passed in G.w.o.P.No. 03 ol 2021 dt. 2611212022 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-lV Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, in the interest of justice. i I I lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under [;,]ction '1 51 CPC praying that in the circ rmsta rces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay b: pleased to suspend the order pas;s;ed in G.W.O.P.No. 03 ot 2021 dt.261121202',t on the file of the Judge, Family Corrrt-cum-lV Addl. District and Sessions Jrrdge ert Karimnagar, in so far as the grar ting custody of the minor children is :once'ned, pending disposal of the main arpeal, in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under fir-.ction 151 CPC praying that in the circ,rmsta,rces stated in the affidavit filed in su rport of the petition, the High Court may be pk'rased to grant leave to file the better affidavit in the lA No 2 of 2024 in FCA No 213 of 2024, in the interest of justice Counsel for the AppellanU petgitioner in both :SRl. N. HARI l)RAS,qD Counsel for the Resp,rndent in both : SRI N. VISHAL The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACI{ARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDIIAN RAO I.A.NO.2 0F 2024 IN/AND FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.223 oF 2024 Mr. N Hari Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Mr. N Vishal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. JUDGMEN T: (Per Hontle Justice Moushumi Bhattachar-j.a) 1. The appellant has frled I.A.No.2 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 553 days in filing the Appeal against the order passed by the learned Family Court on 26.12.2022. 2. The appeal was frled on O2.OS.2O24. 3. On O4.O3.2O25, we noted that the reasons given by the appellant in I.A.No.2 of 2024 do not satisfy the requirements under section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 and paragraph 3 of the I.A. does not provide any reasons for the delay of 553 days in filing the Famity Court Appeal (FCA). 4. On O4.O3.2O25, the Court accordingly gave the appellant an opportunity to frle an improved affrdavit to explain the delay in filing the FCA. 2

5. On 18,r)3.2025, the Court further recorled that the improved alfidavit fails to disclose any rearions for the condonation of the delay of 553 days in frling the FCA

6. We hnc. from the records that the appellant lLas hled I.A.No.1 of 2025. Learned counsel appearing for the appeliant hcli,ever is unaware as to why I'A'No of 2125 was frled before this Court. 7 . On pt'r'usal of the grounds given for e xplair ring the delay of 55i, days in the improved afhdavit, n'e hnd that the only reason given by the appellant in paragraph I of the afhdavit is that the appellant's counsel did not in brm the appellant tL at the Appeal had been set ex pane b1' the Trial Court on (t8.72.2O22. Paragraph 3 also states that the appellalt's reother is a senior crtizer. and suff'lring from o1d age ailmenr.:;, and that the appellant was he -rce r- nable to contact his counsel. 8. We d r not hnd any other ground for ':xpla:ning the delay after i16.12.2O22, i.e., the date of the impugn:d order, till the frlin11 of the FCA on O2.O8.2024. g. There is hence no cause shown in ;atisf rction of section 5 ol lhe Limitation Act, 1963. I t 3

10. We are informed by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent has been denied an opportunity to see the children of the parties or being given visitation rights, i.e., from the time of the frling of the G.W.O.P. on 03.O2.2O27. The respondent's deprivation is notwithstanding the fact that the respondent has been given custody of the children by the impugned order dated I t

26.12.2022.

11. To reiterate, the Trial Court allowed the respondent,s petition for custody of the minor children and gave the respondent custody of the children till they became adults. I I The appellant (the respondent in the Family Court) was given the right to visit the minor children every fortnight. 12. Counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the respondent fried an Execution Petition in July 2023, but the Trial Court has not passed any orders in the Execution Petition due to the pendency of the present Appea_I. 1 3. The only consideration relevant before us is whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in frling the present Appeal. We do not find any satisfactory reasons provided by the appellant for explaining the delay of 4 553 days in li',ing the FCA despite being given ar opportunit5r to file an imProved affrdavit. 14. I.A.No.:2 of 2024 and F'C'A'No'223 of 2024 are accord inglv r ismissed. A11 connected applications are dismisst:d' lnterim orders, i.f a1 ,,, shal1 stand vacated. There shall be rLo order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOIN' REGISTRAR sect&6ffrcea l.TheJudge,Familycourt_cum-lVAdditionalDis|rictilndSessions Judge at Karintnagar.

2. OnJCC to SRl, N HARI PRASAD Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N VISHAL Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ( { HIGH COURT DATED:O7104t2O25 JUDGMENT I.A. NO. 2 0F 2024 ln/and FCA.No.223 oI 2024 t 1EL":, o (?- L2 /<J () \ lr..'i =$ !, DISMISSING THE FC A AND I.A. NO. 2 OF 2024 WITHOUT COSTS 45b(