Gujarat High Court
Rekhadevi Pratap Sinh Senger vs Pratapsinh Shivnarayansinh Sengar on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3306/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3306 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 17334 of 2025
==========================================================
REKHADEVI PRATAP SINH SENGER
Versus
PRATAPSINH SHIVNARAYANSINH SENGAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAJESH M CHAUHAN(2470) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. ANMOL D GANWANI(17435) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 13/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the delay of 169 days caused in preferring the captioned first appeal.
2. Ms.Dhwanika Chauhan, learned Advocate for Mr.Rajesh Chauhan, learned advocate for the applicant invited the attention to the averments made in the application as well as the additional affidavit. The appellant has the responsibility of old parents and young girl child and owing to the said reasons, she could not take steps in time. It is submitted that the advocate was contacted and had gathered the information and took steps to challenge the judgment. In the process, there occurred a delay of 169 days. It is also submitted that a meager amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been allowed towards the permanent alimony against which the appellant has serious reservations. It is urged that the delay is bona fide which may kindly be condoned.
Page 1 of 2 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 03:20:30 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/3306/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
3. Mr.Anmol Ganwani, learned Advocate submitted that the appeal period got over and the respondent has already entered into second marriage. It is submitted that the amount deposited towards the permanent alimony has been withdrawn by the appellant and hence, now to challenge the judgment would be misplaced. On one hand, the applicant has taken the benefit of permanent alimony and on the other hand, challenged the same.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties.
5. The appellant is residing at Jetpur Shivali, Kanpur. In the application, it is stated that she has responsibility of old parents and girl child, and for her it is not only difficult to maintain but also difficult to take steps. This Court is of the opinion that the delay has been sufficiently explained.
6. Having regard to the averments made so also the oral submissions and explanation offered, this Court, is of the opinion that delay of 169 days caused in filing the captioned appeal deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.
7. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SINDHU NAIR Page 2 of 2 Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 03:20:30 IST 2025