Prabha W/O Kisan Bhalerao vs Kisan S/O Nagoji Bhalerao
2017 Latest Caselaw 3873 Bom

 WP 3557.08.odt                               1
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                      WRIT PETITION NO.3557 OF 2008

 Prabha w/o Kisan Bhalerao,
 Aged about 30 years,
 Occupation-Household work,
 R/o. Kajalamba, Tah. Washim,
 District-Washim.                                  ..               PETITIONER

                               .. VERSUS ..

 Kisan s/o Nagoji Bhalerao,
 Aged about 50 years,
 Occupation-Agriculturist,
 Grocery shop and Grain Shop
 and Money lending,
 R/o. Tandali Shewai,
 Tah. Washim, Distt. Washim.                       ..           RESPONDENT


                    ..........
 None for petitioner,
 Shri N.A. Gaikwad, Advocate holding for Shri Sunil V.
 Manohar, Advocate and Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for
 respondent.
                    ..........

                               CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.

DATED : JULY 01, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This petition takes an exception to the order dated

9.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,

Washim in Misc. Civil Application No.18/1998 dismissing the

application for condonation of delay preferred by petitioner.

2] The facts giving rise to the petition may be stated

in brief as under :

(i) Petitioner claims herself to be the wife of

respondent. She filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.19/1994

under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The said

petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated

4.5.1996.

(ii) Petitioner desired to prefer an appeal

against the said judgment and order of dismissal of petition.

As she could not file appeal within time, an application was

moved for condonation of delay. Vide impugned order dated

9.11.1998, application was rejected. Hence, she filed Civil

Revision Application No.368/1999. As per order dated

11.8.2008, this court permitted to convert Civil Revision

Application into Writ Petition.

3] Heard Shri N.A. Gaikwad, learned counsel for

respondent.

4] With the assistance of learned counsel for

respondent, this court has gone through the application for

condonation of delay filed by petitioner before the appellate

court and also the impugned order. No specific period of

delay has been mentioned in the application. From the date

of order of dismissal i.e. 4.5.1996 till civil application was

moved on 13.4.1998, it is apparent that delay was of around

two years. Though condonation of delay was sought on the

grounds that petitioner was kidnapped and she was

wandering here and there and so she could not have the

knowledge of dismissal of her petition, petitioner did not file

supporting material to her contentions. The appellate court

has specifically observed in the order that on 14.10.1996

that she had knowledge about the judgment and decree as

she herself had moved an application in appeal filed by her

son to add as a party. The observations is based on record.

No where petitioner challenges the said observations and

there is no specific denial that on 14.10.1996 she had

knowledge of the judgment and decree against which she

was to prefer an appeal.

5] In the above premise and as no illegality or

perversity is noticed in the impugned order, this court finds

that no interference is warranted in writ jurisdiction. Writ

Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

(Kum. Indira Jain, J.) Gulande, PA