Civil Application No. 25 of 2009 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The Applicant states, on knowing the impugned decree of divorce, she had gone into depression and delay caused is not on account of any carelessness. She has satisfied that delay caused deserves to be condoned though it has been opposed by Mr. Mirajkar. However…
Judgment
Heard Mr. Pillai, the learned counsel for the Applicant and Mr. Mirajkar, the learned counsel for the Respondent
The Applicant has filed Family Court Appeal (St) No. 1885 of 2009 but belatedly and hence, this application for condonation of delay.
As per the Office Note, the Appeal is beyond the time by 154 days whereas as per Mr. RMA 1 CAM188709030409.sxw Mirajkar, the Appeal is beyond the time of 183 days.
The Applicant states, on knowing the impugned decree of divorce, she had gone into depression and delay caused is not on account of any carelessness. She has satisfied that delay caused deserves to be condoned though it has been opposed by Mr. Mirajkar. However, this is a fit case to impose costs. Hence, delay condonation application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to payment of cost quantified as Rs. 500/ and to be remitted to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority of this Court.
List the Appeal for admission on
21.04.2009. (RAVI K. DESHPANDE, J) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J) RMA 2 CAM188709030409.sxw (Leena Vs Kuttikattu) RMA 3 CAM188709030409.sxw RMA 4 CAM188709030409.sxw
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.