Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs Smt. Vandna Yadav
2022 Latest Caselaw 6954 MP

                                                       1
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                        BEFORE
                                                SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                                           &
                                          SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
                                                ON THE 9th OF MAY, 2022

                                           FIRST APPEAL No. 574 of 2021

                              Between:-
                              DHARMENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI RAM
                              KISHOR YADAV , AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                              OCCUPATION: NOTHING H.NO. 72/7 TYPE-II
                              KHAMARIYA DIST. JABALPUR MP (MADHYA
                              PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....APPELLANT
                              (BY SHRI ADITYA NARAYAN GUPTA, ADVOCATE)

                              AND

                              SMT. VANDNA YADAV W/O DHARMENDRA
                              YADAV D/O CHHOTELAL YADAV , AGED ABOUT
                              38 YEARS, NEAR DURGA MANDIR CHANDMARI
                              TALLAIYA    LALMAATI   P.S.  GHAMAPUR
                              JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENT


                            Th is appeal coming on for hearing this day, JUSTICE DWARKA

                      DHISH BANSAL passed the following:
                                                        ORDER

This First Appeal has been filed by appellant-defendant-husband challenging the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2012 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 554-A/11 whereby respondent/plaintiff/wife's petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act Signature SAN Not has been allowed.

Verified

Digitally signed by Bare perusal of the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2012 shows that KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2022.05.12 17:09:41 IST

this judgment and decree has been passed after service of notice on the appellant-husband, who contested the case and adduced his evidence. Ultimately, the judgment and decree was passed in presence of the appellant- husband.

Against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 05.12.2012, this First Appeal has been filed on 10.08.2021 alongwith application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, in which office has reported the delay of 2626 days.

In the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, which is supported by affidavit of the appellant, it has been contended that the respondent made oral

complaint in the month of February 2021 to the Police Station-Khamari, thereupon, the appellant appeared in the police station where he was treated badly. The appellant contends that thereafter he has filed divorce petition and upon receipt of summons, the respondent has filed an application under S. 125 (3) and S. 127 of Cr.P.C. and also filed execution proceedings for compliance of the impugned judgment and decree. He submits that only thereafter he contacted to his counsel, who suggested the appellant to file the present appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree and consequently after applying and receiving the certified copy on 15.07.2021, the appellant has filed the present First Appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Firstly, the impugned judgment and decree was passed after hearing and in presence of both the parties and in the entire application the appellant has nowhere contended that he was not aware of the judgment and decree passed by learned Court below.

Making of complaint to the police and filing of application under S.

125(3) and S. 127 of Cr.P.C. or to file execution proceedings by the respondent-wife for compliance of the impugned judgment and decree cannot be a ground available to the appellant-husband to condone the delay in filing of the first appeal that too after lapse of 2626 days.

Apparently, the appellant has not shown any sufficient reason for non filing of the first appeal after 05.12.2012 till 10.08.2021.

Resultantly, having found no ground to condone the delay of 2626 days, the I.A. No.5601/2021 is hereby dismissed and consequently the first appeal is also dismissed. However, without any order, as to costs.

   (SUJOY PAUL)                                       (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
      JUDGE                                                  JUDGE
Pallavi