Gujarat High Court
Kailash @ Kajal W/O Mukeshbhai ... vs Mukeshbhai Kishorbhai Lakhani on 21 July, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1643/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1643 of
2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 9174 of 2024
================================================================
KAILASH @ KAJAL W/O MUKESHBHAI KISHORBHAI LAKHANI D/O
BABUBHAI KESHUBHAI DOBARIYA
Versus
MUKESHBHAI KISHORBHAI LAKHANI
===============================================================
Appearance:
MS VIRAL A DETROJA(12122) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 21/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. This application is filed by the applicant for condoning
the delay of 874 days in preferring the appeal against the
order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Surat in Family Suit No.394 of 2018.
2. It is reported that the rule issued by this Court is
served and learned advocate Mr.Kassh Thakkar has
appeared.
3. Learned advocate has drawn attention of this Court
to the contents of para-3 to 8 of the application, wherein it
stated that the applicant never know about the divorce
application filed by the respondent herein and hence, she
did not appear before the learned Judge and she has come
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1643/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
to know about the judgment and decree when the present
applicant has filed the application for maintenance.
Further, the respondent has filed his reply wherein he has
declared that he has already filed a divorce petition before
the learned Family Judge and that was allowed. After
receiving the information about the divorce application,
the applicant has applied for copies of the papers which
have been put up on record by the respondent in the
divorce petition and upon receiving the same, she came to
know that respondent has committed a fraud with the
Court and has shown false address in the cause-title of the
petition. Further, because of a false complaint filed against
her under land grabbing Act, she went to jail and was
released on regular bail and upon meeting the advocate
she has filed the present appeal and during this process,
some delay has occurred.
4. Therefore, learned advocate has drawn attention of
this Court to the reasons for which delay has occurred.
5. The application for delay condonation is strongly
resisted by the respondent-husband and has relied upon
the affidavit in reply filed on his behalf. In the affidavit in
reply, the averments are made with regard to the merits
of the case giving out chronology of their matrimonial life
and also the grounds for dispute. Averments in the nature
of blaming the wife for the disturbed life are also made.
The elaborate submissions made on the merits, in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1643/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
opinion of the Court, are inconsequential for the purpose
of considering the explanation offered by the applicant-
wife in condoning the delay. Suffice it to say that the
service of notice of the application by the Family Court
was at the native address of the applicant-wife, where the
parents of the applicant who are illiterate were residing,
but definitely the applicant was not residing at that
address. This was to the knowledge of the respondent-
husband.
5.1 One more aspect, which is required to be considered
is that the applicant-wife, as is submitted before this
Court, was in custody in connection with another offense,
which had also prevented the applicant-wife from actively
follow her matrimonial life.
6. Considering the nature of litigation in the appeal,
where the dispute is arising out of matrimonial life and
that the impugned judgment and order was passed ex-
parte, in absence of the applicant-wife and as the
applicant wife has assigned cogent reason for her inability
to appear before the Family Court, the application
deserves consideration.
7. Considering the aforesaid, particularly, period of 874
days of delay, the Court is of the view that considering the
facts involved in the case, delay cannot be treated as
inordinate. Considering the submissions and the contents
of the para mentioned hereinabove, the delay is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1643/2024 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
explained sufficiently.
8. A reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Sheo Raj
Singh (Deceased) through Legal Representatives
and others vs/. Union of India and Another, reported
in, (2023) 10 SCC 531, wherein the term "Sufficient
Cause" was interpreted and the approach of Courts while
deciding application for condonation of delay was
discussed.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The delay of 874 days in preferring the appeal against the
order dated 09.08.2019 passed by the Principal Judge,
Family Court, Surat in Family Suit No.394 of 2018. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed
to list the main appeal in due course.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
(NSSG,J)
SIDDHARTH
