[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Garimella Krishna Mohan Alias ... vs Rajiva Garimella Alias Garimella S ... on 3 December, 2025
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
****
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
I.A.NO.2 OF 2025
IN/AND
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.174 OF 2025
DATED: 03.12.2025
Between :
Garimella Krishna Mohan alias Garimella Krishna,
S/o. Late Ramdas Bhaskara Garimella.
...Appellant
Versus
Rajiva Garimella alias Garimella S Rajeeva,
D/o. S. Satyanarayana Rao.
...Respondent
Mr. S. Raghu Ram, learned counsel representing Ms. K. Sridevi, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant.
Mr. K. Jagadeeshwara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The appellant seeks condonation of delay of 35 days in filing
of the present Family Court Appeal.
2. Paragraph No.5 of the IA (in both the IAs. filed before the
Division Bench) states that the prayer is for condonation of delay of
76 days. The reason given for the delay consists of the appellant's
health condition during the relevant period. The second reason is
that the appellant was unable to contact his counsel to provide
necessary instructions for filing an Appeal. The third reason is
that the appellant was explained by counsel that there is a
potential conflict between the limitation contemplated for
Matrimonial Appeals under The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and The
Family Courts Act, 1984.
3. The impugned order and decree forming the subject matter
of the Family Court Appeal is dated 13.06.2025.
4. The Appeal was filed on 10.11.2025. The delay of 76 days
was calculated on the basis of section 28(4) of The Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955, which specifies that an Appeal under section 28 shall be
preferred within a period of ninety days from the date of the decree
or order. Section 19(3) of The Family Courts Act, 1984 however
specifies that Appeals under section 19 shall be preferred within a
period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a
Family Court.
5. We are of the considered view that the period of limitation
provided under The Family Courts Act, 1984 will take precedence
over The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 since the former is a special
statute and governs the limitation period for all Appeals filed under
section 19 of the said Act. Section 20 of The Family Courts Act,
1984, declares that the Act shall have overriding effect
notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law.
6. Apart from the appellant erroneously calculating 76 days
(mentioned as 35 days in the IA) on the basis of section 28(4) of
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, there is also no evidence in support
of the reasons given for the delay, i.e., the health condition of the
appellant and the appellant failing to contact his counsel. Indeed,
the potential conflict between The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and
The Family Courts Act, 1984, should have persuaded the appellant
to approach the Court at an earlier point of time.
7. We hence do not find any reason to condone the delay.
8. I.A.No.2 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed.
9. Consequently, FCA.No.174 of 2025, along with all connected
applications, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
_________________________________
MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J
_____________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J
Date: 03.12.2025
NDS
