Gujarat High Court
Reenaben D/O Kanaiyalal Chatrabhuj ... vs Harshadkumar Madhavlal Patel on 24 November, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4284/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4284 of
2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 24319 of 2025
==========================================================
REENABEN D/O KANAIYALAL CHATRABHUJ JOSHI
Versus
HARSHADKUMAR MADHAVLAL PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JIGAR D DAVE(6528) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARTH D PATEL(9754) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. By this application, the applicant has prayed for condoning the
delay of 308 days caused in preferring the captioned first appeal
whereby, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 03.05.2024
passed by the learned Judge, Family Court in Family Suit no.1319 of
2016. Application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") has been granted and
the marriage between the applicant and respondent solemnized on
20.01.2011 is declared as null and void.
2. Mr Jigar D. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the applicant
submitted that there is a delay of 308 days caused in preferring the
captioned appeal which is bona fide inasmuch as, the applicant was
unaware about the impugned judgment and order passed by the
learned Judge. It is submitted that the marriage took place in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4284/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
year 2011 and in the year 2016 the separation took place, followed
with numerous proceedings. It is further submitted that the fact of
passing of the impugned judgment and order was not made known
to the applicant by the lawyer. Had it been so, the applicant ought
not to have preferred the revision application before this Court
together with civil application for condonation of delay against the
order dated 05.08.2023 passed under Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code of
1973"). The revision was preferred with a delay of 51 days which
was condoned by this Court by passing an order dated 06.08.2024.
It is submitted that the applicant, is a homemaker and facing a
severe financial crunch inasmuch as, no maintenance has been
awarded to the applicant and she is having the responsibility of a
teenage daughter. It is submitted that the applicant has a strong
case on merits and hence, the delay may be condoned.
3. On the other hand, Mr Parth D. Patel, learned advocate
appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the
application. It is submitted that all the three grounds raised, namely,
(i) lawyer did not inform about the judgment; (ii) that it was beyond
the comprehension of the applicant to understand the judgment and
(iii) that she was facing the financial crunch, are misplaced
inasmuch as, the applicant, is in the habit of not remaining present
and allowing the applications to be dismissed. It is submitted that in
the proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2005"), the
order was passed in the year 2018 which was challenged by filing an
appeal together with the civil application for condonation
application. The delay was condoned. The criminal appeal since the
applicant was not remaining present, came to be dismissed for want
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4284/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
of prosecution on 20.01.2020. Again application was preferred and
by passing an order dated 07.03.2022, the appeal was restored and
was heard and vide order dated 23.12.2022, appeal was partly
allowed and the matter was remanded and the previous order dated
15.02.2018 was quashed and set aside. It is submitted that the
Court has shown sufficient indulgence but it is the applicant who has
always remained indolent and as a result whereof, the criminal
miscellaneous application again came to be dismissed by passing an
order dated 04.10.2025. It is therefore submitted that series of
orders passed would suggest the conduct of the applicant being
indolent. It is therefore submitted that the delay cannot be said to
be bona fide and does not deserve to be condoned. Mr Parth D.
Patel, learned advocate submitted that it is not correct on the part
of the applicant to say that she was not aware inasmuch as, the
certified copy suggest that the certified copy was applied on
06.05.2024 and was ready for delivery on 28.06.2024 and was
delivered on 15.07.2024 and hence, the said contention, is
misplaced and does not deserve to be accepted.
4. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties.
5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the judgment in
the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another vs.
Mst. Katiji and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, the Hon'ble
Apex Court, has observed that refusing to condone delay can result
in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and
cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is
condoned the highest that can happen is that the cause would be
decided on merits after hearing the parties. Moreover, 'Every day's
delay must be explained' does not mean that the pedantic approach
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4284/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
should be made. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common
sense pragmatic manner.
6. At this stage, a brief reference of the proceedings would be
necessitated. The applicant, had preferred an application under the
Act of 2005 which, came to be dismissed for want of prosecution
against which appeal was preferred together with an application
seeking condonation of delay. The delay was condoned of 63 days
by passing an order dated 22.10.2019. The appeal was again listed
for hearing which was dismissed on 20.01.2020 on the ground that
the applicant has remained absent. Once again, application was
preferred for restoration of the appeal together with application
seeking condonation of delay. Once again, by passing an order
dated 30.10.2021, the delay was condoned. The appeal was
restored by passing an order dated 07.03.2022. The appeal, came
to be partly allowed and the order dated 15.02.2018 was quashed
and set aside. Discernibly, vide order dated 04.10.2025, the criminal
miscellaneous application, has again been dismissed for want of
prosecution. It is not clear as to whether any application is filed
seeking restoration or not.
7. Adverting to the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of
1973. It may be noted that the application came to be rejected on
05.08.2023 during the pendency of the Family Suit no.1319 of 2016
which was challenged before this Court with a delay of 51 days. It
has been reported that the application was registered somewhere in
the month of January 2024 but the application seeking delay was
heard on 06.08.2024. The delay was condoned by this Court and the
revision application, is pending consideration. According to the
learned advocate, in view of the final order passed on 03.05.2024,
the said application now would not survive and has been rendered
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4284/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
infructuous.
8. It is sought to be argued that the certified copy was
immediately applied for; however, as per the endorsement on the
judgment it was seen by the learned advocate appearing for the
respondent only, which aspect is fairly conceded by the learned
advocate. Endorsement of the learned advocate by the applicant is
not there. So far as the aspect of applying certified copy is
concerned it is the categorical case of the applicant that the lawyer
did not inform her about the outcome of the proceeding. Therefore,
the said contention also deserves to be rejected.
9. Considering the nature of the orders passed, it appears that
the applicant could not take steps and the orders were passed. Not
once but twice the original proceedings and the appeals both have
been dismissed for want of prosecution. Perceptibly, steps were
taken for the purpose of restoration. It is not that the application
was dismissed and the applicant has not taken any steps at all. The
applicant is struggling with the proceedings pending under the Act
of 2005, under the Code of 1973 etc.. The record suggest that the
applicant has been taking steps.
10. Considering the explanation offered and the principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court, thinks it fit that delay of
308 days caused in filing the captioned appeal deserves to be
condoned and is hereby condoned.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4284/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
11. Civil application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. Rule is
made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
