Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Ranjan Kumar vs Deepika Roy on 30 October, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A No.135 of 2022
-----
Ravi Ranjan Kumar ....... ... Appellant
Versus
Deepika Roy ... ... Respondent
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kr. Gupta, Advocate
------
th
Order No.09/Dated: 30 October, 2025
I.A No.12029 of 2022
1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed under section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring the
First Appeal No.135 of 2022.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant by referring
to the statements made in para-4 to 8 has submitted that the time having
been consumed in preparing the file of appeal which was beyond the
control of the appellant. It has been submitted that the delay is only 20
days and, as such, a liberal approach may be taken otherwise the
applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-wife has
vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay by filing reply
to the aforesaid interlocutory application stating the ground that the
specific reason has not been explained for day today delay, rather
evasive ground has been taken for condonation of delay showing the
cause to be sufficient for the purpose of condoning the delay and, as
such, the delay may not be condoned.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The delay of 20 days has been caused in filing the appeal.
6. Before dealing with the stand as has been taken showing the sufficient
cause in the instant interlocutory application, it needs to refer herein the
order dated 24.09.2025 passed in the present proceeding whereby this
Court has granted four weeks' time to go through the legal position with
respect to the issue as to whether the period of limitation will be 30 days
as provided under section 19 (3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 or
90 days in view of the amendment having been incorporated in section
28 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/applicant has
submitted that this Court has passed the order dated 16.07.2025 in F.A
No.250 of 2024 wherein while taking into consideration the implication
of provision of section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act wherein no
amendment has been inserted in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Savitri Pandey Vs. Prem
Chandra Pandey reported in (2002) 2 SCC 73, and, as such, this Court
has passed an order relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of
"Arunoday Singh V. Lee Anne Elton" reported in 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 3285, wherein it has been held that in absence of any amendment
having been incorporated under section 19(3) extending the period of
filing appeal while within 90 days in place of 30 days as provided therein
has been pleased to hold that in absence of the amendment the Forum
since has been chosen for filing appeal under section 19(1) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 and, as such, the period of limitation for filing appeal
as provided under section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 will
apply.
8. This Court relying upon the judgment rendered in "Arunoday Singh
V. Lee Anne Elton" (supra) has came to the conclusive finding that the
period to file limitation will be 30 days as per the provision under section
19(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. However, the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has passed a judgment in the case of "Dr. Pankaj Kumar
Vs. Prerna" (F.A. 49 of 2019) wherein by taking into consideration the
amendment extending the period of limitation from 30 days to 90 days
by inserting amendment under section 28(4) has passed an order of
period of limitation of 90 days.
9. The judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of "Dr.
Pankaj Kumar Vs. Prerna" (F.A. 49 of 2019) is of the order dated
16.12.2020 and the order passed by this Court in F.A No.250 of 2024 is
dated 16.07.2025 which is after filing of the instant appeal which has
been filed on 23.11.2022, the day when the judgment passed by a co-
ordinate Bench in "Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs. Prerna" (F.A. 49 of 2019)
was operative. Therefore, the contention has been raised that the period
to file limitation will be 90 days in terms of the judgment passed by a co-
ordinate Bench in "Dr. Pankaj Kumar Vs. Prerna" (F.A. 49 of 2019).
10. This Court on consideration of the said submission and by
applying the principle of prospective overruling of the judgment, we are
in agreement to the submission which has been submitted on behalf of
the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, we are of the view that
so far as the present appeal is concerned, since the same has been filed
on 23.11.2022, i.e., prior to the judgment passed by this Court in F.A
No.250 of 2024 the period of limitation will be 90 days.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the delay of 20 days is there on the basis of the aforesaid submission
which has sufficiently been explained.
12. The Court is conscious that while condoning the delay, that too of 20
days, a liberal approach is to be taken otherwise the litigant concern will
suffer irreparable loss and injury since the matter could not be decided
on merit rather on technicality and before adjudication on the issue on
merit the appeal is to be thrown out.
13. This Court considering the aforesaid fact is of the view that the delay
is fit to be condoned and accordingly, the delay of 20 days in preferring
the First Appeal No.135 of 2022 is hereby condoned.
14. Accordingly, I.A No.12029 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of
as such.
15. Heard.
16. Admit.
17. Since both the parties have appeared and, as such, there is no need to
issue notice.
18. Call for the Trial Court Records.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Dated: 30/10/2025
Sudhir
