Bombay High Court
Ambadas Poshati Maccha vs Gita Ambadas Maccha on 16 February, 2021
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2438 OF 2020
IN
SA/6025/2020
Ambadas Poshati Maccha,
Age 41 years, occupation Tailoring,
R/o. H. No.78, Premdan Hudco,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar. ...Applicant
(Original Respondent)
VERSUS
Sau. Gita Ambadas Maccha,
Age 38 years, Occupation Nil,
R/o. C/o. Gangaram Laxman Fula,
1027, Parnaik Galli, Sarjepura,
Taluka and District Ahmednagar. ...Respondent
(Original Petitioner)
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. G. D. Jain
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. A. D. Aghav
.....
CORAM : SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
Date of Reserving The Order :
03-02-2021
Date of Pronouncing The Order :
16-02-2021
ORDER :
1. Present application has been filed for getting delay of 381 days
condoned in filing second appeal.
2 CA 2438-2020
2. Present applicant is the original respondent. Present
respondent/original petitioner had filed Hindu Marriage Petition
No105 of 2015 before 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
Ahmednagar for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The said petition
came to be partly decreed. The decree of divorce was granted and
the respondent husband was directed to pay permanent alimony to
the petitioner. The said Judgment and decree was passed on 12-04-
2016. That Judgment and decree was challenged by original
petitioner by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.161 of 2011 before
learned District Judge-1, Ahmednagar. The said appeal came to
decreed on 30-10-2018. It came to be partly allowed. Inference
has been done only in respect of ground of permanent alimony.
Instead of monthly payment of permanent alimony, the respondent
husband was directed to pay permanent alimony in lump-sum of
Rs.10 Lakh within a period of two months. The present applicant
intends to challenge the said Judgment and decree, however as
aforesaid, there is delay of 381 days. Hence, present application.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. G. D. Jain for applicant and
learned Advocate Mr. A. D. Aghav for respondent.
3 CA 2438-2020
4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicant
that the modification in the order by the First Appellate Court is
perverse. The applicant is admittedly tailor by profession, yet he
has been directed to pay lump-sum amount of Rs.10 lakh. The
delay is caused due to receiving the certified copies of the relevant
documents and also on the ground of ill health of the applicant. The
application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is required to
be considered from liberal point of view and, therefore, he relied on
the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji,
reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353.
5. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent strongly
opposed the application and submitted that the applicant has not
produced any such document showing that he is suffering from any
diseases. Absolutely no sufficient ground has been shown and,
therefore, he does not deserve any sympathy. Unless the sufficient
and reasonable cause is shown, this Court cannot interfere with the
orders those have been passed by the competent lower Courts.
6. We cannot see the merits of the case at this stage but will
have to restrict ourselves whether the applicant has shown any
4 CA 2438-2020
reasonable ground or not. There appears to be an undisputed fact
that the respondent is a tailor by profession. It appears that he had
not challenged the Judgment and decree passed in Hindu Marriage
Petition No.105 of 2015, but the petitioner herself had filed the said
appeal. The only point that was raised before the First Appellate
Court was the grant of permanent alimony in lump-sum. Now the
applicant says that he is suffering from various diseases. He has not
produced any document on record but then he states that he had no
money to pay any amount and, therefore, he had approached High
Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad for legal aid.
Perusal of the record does not show the order of appointment of the
learned Advocate and it is not clear as to whether the High Court
Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad has granted legal aid to
present applicant or not, but then the said fact is not even disputed.
A liberal approach is required to be taken taking into consideration
the duration of the delay. No doubt, the inconvenience that is
caused to the other side is equally required to be compensated in
terms of money though the applicant says that he had approached
the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad. Hence,
following order.
5 CA 2438-2020
ORDER
1) Application is hereby allowed.
2) The delay caused in filing Second Appeal is hereby
condoned subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5000/- (five
thousand) to be deposited within 15 days from the date
of this order.
3) After the amount is deposited, Registry to verify
and register the second appeal.
4) Respondent is permitted to withdraw the said
amount.
(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE
vjg/-
