Priyanka Mukherjee vs Sukanta Mukherjee
2025 Latest Caselaw 7060 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Priyanka Mukherjee vs Sukanta Mukherjee on 5 September, 2025

Author: M. Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                                            Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010189952025




                                                                     undefined

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

                                  Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2934/2025

             PRIYANKA MUKHERJEE
             D/O LATE RAJENDRA NATH SARMAH, RESIDENT OF H/NO. 89, RADHA
             NAGAR PATH, VIP ROAD, SIX MILE , GUWAHATI, KAMRUP METRO,
             ASSAM



             VERSUS

             SUKANTA MUKHERJEE
             SON OF SRI SANKAR MUKHERJEE, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 18, ULUBARI,
             VIVEKANDA PATH, NEAR AMRIT AGENCY, GUWAHATI-7, KAMRUP
             METRO, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S P DAS, MR. ANGSHUMAN DEKA,MS C BORA,MS. S
BAISHYA

Advocate for the Respondent : ,




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
                  HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA

                                             ORDER

05.09.2025 (M. Zothankhuma, J)

Heard Mr. S.P. Das, learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that the Page No.# 2/2

applicant wife had filed F.C. (Civil) Case No.1165/2018 in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court No.III, Kamrup(M), with a prayer for grant of permanent alimony of Rs.1.00 crore. However, the learned Family Court granted a decree of Rs.10,00,000/- only. He submits that while the impugned judgment had been passed on 21.02.2025, the applicant's father had expired on 12.02.2025, due to which she could not give time to the present matter, as being the only daughter she had to do all the rituals as per the Hindu rites and customs. Further, the applicant's mother having expired, the applicant who was living in a rented house with her minor daughter was having various difficulties. He accordingly submits that there was a delay of 48 days in filing the appeal. He prays that the same may be condoned.

On considering the ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, we find sufficient ground for condoning the delay has been made out. Accordingly, the delay of 48 days is condoned.

Registry to list the appeal within a week.

I.A.(C) is accordingly disposed of .

                        JUDGE                      JUDGE




Comparing Assistant