Gopal Ranjan Banerjee vs Smt. Manidipa Banerjee ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 432 Cal

 16.01.2023
SL No.9 wt 10
 Court No.8
    (gc)


                              FA 9 of 2016
                CAN 3 of 2016 (Old No: CAN 4894 of 2016)

                       Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @
                           Gopal Ranjan Banerjee
                                    Vs.
                      Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)

                                       With
                                   COT 99 of 2022
                                   CAN 1 of 2023

                      Smt. Manidipa Banerjee (Talukdar)
                                    Vs.
                       Gopal Ranjan Bandopadhyay @
                           Gopal Ranjan Banerjee

                                      Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey,
                                                         ...for the Appellant.
                                      Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty,
                                        ...for the Respondent/Cross-objector.

Re: CAN 1 of 2023 In COT 99 of 2022

This is an application for condonation of delay of

2421 days. The application has been filed by the wife. It

appears that the wife was suffering from cancer initially

and it had elapsed during the pendency of the suit and

she could not prefer the appeal as she was recovering

from the said ailment and it took considerable time for her

to recovery. Even today, she has not recovered

completely. She is under medical treatment. The wife

has filed this Cross-objection with a prayer for

condonation of delay. The prayer is opposed by the

husband. Initially, the wife was not appearing for which

we directed the Calcutta High Court Legal Services

Committee to appoint an Advocate to represent the wife.

Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty has been appointed to

represent the wife. The learned Advocate has filed her

Vakalatnama on 12th September, 2022. The parties were

sent to mediation. The mediation has also failed.

Considering the aforesaid fact and also being

satisfied with the explanation offered for not being able to

file the appeal within the period of limitation, we condone

the delay in filing the cross-objection.

The application for condonation of delay is,

accordingly, allowed.

The application being CAN 1 of 2023 in COT 99 of

2022 stands disposed of.

Re: CAN 3 of 2016 (Old No: CAN 4894 of 2016) In FA 9 of 2016

The appellant is the applicant. Since the appellant

preferred an appeal against the decree for judicial

separation, this application was filed restraining the wife

from entering the matrimonial home and from restituting

the conjugal rights.

In view of the fact that we have admitted the appeal

and the appeal is required to be heard on merits, there

shall be an order of injunction restraining the wife from

visiting the matrimonial home.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, all

allegations made in the application are deemed to have

been denied.

The application being CAN 3 of 2016 (Old No: CAN

4894 of 2016) in FA 9 of 2016 stands disposed of.

Re: FA 9 of 2016 With COT 99 of 2022

The cross-objection has already been served upon

the learned Advocate representing the appellant. Since it

is arising out of the same judgment, there is no need to

file any separate paper book.

The appeal and the cross-objection shall be listed in

the Combined Monthly List of February, 2023.

The affidavit-in-opposition filed in Court today is

taken on record.

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)