Xxxx Xxxx vs Xxxx Xxxx
2023 Latest Caselaw 4980 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Xxxx Xxxx vs Xxxx Xxxx on 11 December, 2023

Author: M. Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma, Malasri Nandi

                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010073452023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1590/2023

            XXXX XXXX
            D/O BIRENDRA DAS,
            W/O BHUPENDRA CH. RAY,
            VILL.- UTTAR GANAKPURI,
            P.O.- SORBHOG,
            DIST.- BARPETA, PIN- 781317, ASSAM.
            PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 1 MATHGHARIA, PATHAR QUARY, P.O.-
            UDAYAN VIHAR, P.S.- NOONMATI, DIST.- KAMRUP METRO, GUWAHATI-
            781171, ASSAM.

            VERSUS

            XXXX XXXX
            S/O LATE KHAGENDRA CH. RAY,
            VILL.- AHOM PATHAR, P.S.- SORBHOG, DIST.- BARPETA, PIN- 781317,
            ASSAM.

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S SINHA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. U B SARMA


             Linked Case :

            XXXX XXXX

             VERSUS

            XXXX XXXX

            ------------
            Advocate for : MR. S SINHA
            Advocate for : appearing for XXXX XXXX
                                                                              Page No.# 2/2




                                     BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                      HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI

                                         ORDER

Date : 11.12.2023 (M. Zothankhuma, J.)

Heard Mr. S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, who submits that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Barpeta, in Case No. TS(M)FC 46/2021, by which the matrimonial suit of the respondent for dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was allowed.

Mr. U. B. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband, submits that he has objection to the delay being condoned.

On considering the grounds of delay, we are of the view that sufficient cause for the delay has been made out as numerated in the application. Accordingly, the delay of 13 days in preferring the appeal is condoned.

Registry to register the appeal and list the same after a week.

Registry is also to show the name of Mr. U. B. Sarma as counsel for the respondent in the Cause List.

I.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

                                                 JUDGE                           JUDGE




Comparing Assistant