Daivshila Vijay Pujari vs Vijay Chandrakant Pujari
2021 Latest Caselaw 17070 Bom

                                                                     2277.20ca
                                   (1)

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               904 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2277 OF 2020
                     IN/WITH FCA(ST.)/5887/2020

                  DAIVSHILA VIJAY PUJARI
                            VERSUS
                VIJAY CHANDRAKANT PUJARI
                                ...
 Mr G. G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for applicant;
 Mr Shashikiran N. Patil, Advocate h/f Mr A. B. Shinde, Advocate
 for respondent

                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                              AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 8th December, 2021

PER COURT:

1. The learned Advocate representing the respondent submits

that he has received instructions to appear. He has still not filed

'Vakalatnama'.

2. The appellant is the original petitioner before the learned

Family Court at Nanded, in Petition No.A-161/2014, filed by her

on 11/06/2013, seeking divorce from the respondent-husband on

the grounds of cruelty and desertion. By the Judgment dated

16/12/2015, the learned Family Court has dismissed the

proceedings and was not convinced with the reasons cited for

2277.20ca

seeking divorce. It was held that the appellant failed to establish

both the grounds.

3. By this application, the appellant prays for condonation of

delay of 1415 days, caused in filing the appeal. The ground put

forth is that the respondent-husband resided with her only for 2 to

3 months after the impugned judgment. He had secretly entered

into a second marriage with a lady, whose marital name is Jyoti

Vijay Pujari. A male child is born to the respondent from his

relation with Jyoti, on 23/12/2013, which indicates that he must

have married her at least a year there-before. This was suppressed

from the learned Family Court, inasmuch as, the appellant got the

knowledge of this fact in 2019 and has filed an appeal on

12/02/2020.

4. From the pleadings set out in the civil application, there is

hardly any contention which would justify condonation of delay

of 1415 days. There are practically no reasons assigned.

5. Besides the above, the appellant's case before the learned

Family Court was not on the ground that the respondent has

entered into a second marriage. The grounds raised by her were

of desertion and cruelty. It is the husband, who has purportedly

2277.20ca

told her that he has entered into a second marriage. However,

this ground has not been pressed by the appellant by seeking an

amendment to the petition. As such, the knowledge of the

husband's illegal second marriage and a child born to him, are

aspects which have come to the knowledge of the appellant in

2019 and this would, therefore, constitute a fresh cause of action.

6. In view of the above, we are of the view that neither the

delay has been explained, nor it would serve any purpose in

accepting the appeal in view of the facts which have come to the

knowledge of the appellant in 2019. She may avail of a remedy

as may be permissible in law, against such act of the husband.

7. This civil application is, therefore, rejected. The Family

Court Appeal stands disposed off.

  (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                    (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




 sjk