Smt. Anupama (Echal) Pukhram vs Shri Mayengbam Suraj Singh
2025 Latest Caselaw 792 Mani

Manipur High Court

Smt. Anupama (Echal) Pukhram vs Shri Mayengbam Suraj Singh on 16 December, 2025

Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh

SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL                Digitally signed by SHAMURAILATPAM
                                     SUSHIL SHARMA
SHARMA                               Date: 2025.12.17 13:35:08 +05'30'
                                                                           Sl. No. 23
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                       AT IMPHAL

                                MC(Mat.App.) No. 16 of 2025

                Smt. Anupama (Echal) Pukhram
                                                      Applicant
                                           Vs.
                Shri Mayengbam Suraj Singh
                                                    Respondent
                                   BEFORE
                 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M. SUNDAR
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
                                            ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M. Sundar, CJ)

16.12.2025

[1] A matrimonial suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by wife

being Matrimonial (R&C) Suit No. 8 of 2022 on the file of Family Court,

Manipur at Lamphelpat was dismissed. This 'judgment and order' shall be

referred to as 'impugned judgment' and the 'court' shall be referred to as a

'Family Court'.

[2] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for wife, submitted that

captioned 'miscellaneous case' ('MC') has been taken out with a condonation

of delay (CoD) prayer qua 52 (fifty two) days delay in filing the appeal

against the impugned judgment.

[3] Ms. Kh. Saibiya, learned counsel for the respondent/appellant,

adverting to objections dated 16.12.2025, submitted that wife had full and

complete knowledge of the impugned judgment of 06.06.2025 itself but

delay in filing of application for certified copy has caused 52 (fifty two) days

delay. It was also submitted that 52 days delay has not been properly

explained.

[4] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel for wife submitted that under

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the prescribed time is 90 (ninety) days

whereas under the Family Courts Act, 1984 the time limit for a statutory

appeal under Section 19 is 30 (thirty) days. It is in this context that there

was some dilemma which led to 52 (fifty two) days delay.

[5] This Court considered the submissions made on both sides.

[6] This Court finds that the reasons for delay is acceptable

considering facts and circumstances, the nature of the matter and the

manner in which the wife/MC applicant is circumstanced.

[7] The result is, delay is condoned, captioned MC is allowed and

ordered as prayed for.

[8]          There shall be no order as to costs.




                    JUDGE                              CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil