Tripura High Court
Sri Nripesh Deb vs Smt. Chumki Das (Deb) on 14 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA 01 OF 2025 IN
MAT. APP. 17 OF 2025
Sri Nripesh Deb,
S/o Sri Nripendra Deb of vill-Subash Palli,
P.S. & P.O. Kumarghat, Sub-Div. Kumarghat,
Dist. Unakoti Tripura.
---Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Chumki Das (Deb),
W/o Sri Nripesh Deb,
D/o Sri Sudhangshu Das of Vill & P.O. Ujan Dudhpur,
P.S. Kumarghat, Sub-Div. Kumarghat,
Dist. Unakoti Tripura.
---Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
For the Applicant/Petitioner : Mr. Harekrishna Bhowmik, Advocate.
For the Respondent : None.
Date of hearing : 30.07.2025
Date of delivery of Order : 14.08.2025
Whether fit for reporting : YES NO
ORDER
(S. Datta Purkayastha,J)
The petitioner has filed the connected appeal bearing No. MAT.
Appeal 17 of 2025 on dismissal of his petition for divorce sought on the
ground of cruelty and desertion by his wife, vide judgment dated 29.11.2022
passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Kailashahar, Unakoti, Tripura, and the
decree drawn thereupon.
2. The appeal is filed with a delay of 812 days and, therefore, by this
petition, the petitioner has sought for condoning such delay. It is the case of the
petitioner that after the impugned judgment was passed on 29.11.2022, the
petitioner applied for the certified copies and received the same after 47 days.
Thereafter, the engaged counsel of the petitioner advised him to wait for six
months and then to file another petition for divorce before the same Court, and
accordingly, after waiting for six months, in the first week of August, 2023 he
contacted his counsel and submitted another petition for divorce in the same
Court on 14.09.2023. When the respondent appeared there and challenged the
maintainability of the said divorce proceeding on the ground of res judicata,
the petitioner withdrew from the said case on 03.03.2025 on the ground of
some formal defects, and now, he has filed the instant appeal before this Court
on 16.07.2025.
3. According to Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the
petitioner, 13 days were consumed for collection of a certified copy of the
order passed in the second divorce petition, and thereafter the petitioner
suffered illness in three different spells, from 19.03.2025 to 02.04.2025; again
from 03.04.2025 to 22.04.2025 and then from 23.04.2025 to 19.05.2025.
Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik also contends that on 20.05.2025, the
petitioner came to Agartala and consulted with his learned counsel there and as
summer vacation was going on, he ultimately met his Advocate at Agartala in
the third week of June, 2025 and finally, filed the appeal on 16.07.2025.
4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, submits that there was no
inordinate or intentional delay on the part of the petitioner, rather, he was
misguided by his Advocate appointed at Kailashahar and therefore, showing
some leniency, the delay may be condoned.
5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel and have
gone through the materials placed on record. The respondent, despite service of
notice, did not appear to contest the case. According to the petitioner, a major
portion of the delay occurred due to wrong advice of his advocate but neither
he has named the said advocate in his petition nor placed any material to show
that he took any steps against said advocate. There is also nothing in the record
to presume that actually the said advocate has misguided him. The petitioner
tries to cover up the delay from 19.03.2025 to 19.05.2025 i.e. for about 2
months, by submitting three medical certificates wherein the medical officer
has certified that he was suffering from 'Rheumatoid Arthritis'. From the
petition, it appears that he is a resident of Kumarghat, Unakoti District whereas
he has collected said medical certificates from a Medical Officer (Ayurveda)
working at Udaipur, Gomati District. These certificates are issued in a
prescribed format meant for leave or extension of leave of a Govt. employee
and the petitioner by profession is a driver as per his affidavit. No supporting
prescription is also submitted by him to show that he was actually under
treatment of any medical officer during said periods for his illness.
6. The petition for divorce i.e. the first proceeding, was dismissed on
29.11.2022 and he submitted his second divorce petition on 14.09.2023. Even
if his contention, that as per wrong advice of his advocate he waited for six
months after dismissal of his first petition for divorce, is accepted to be correct,
still he submitted the second petition for divorce after about three and half
months of completion of said six months. Said period of delay also remains
unexplained.
7. Considering all these aspects, we are not at all satisfied with the
explanation offered by the petitioner in support of his prayer for condoning
delay of such a long period. Where elements of lack of due diligence are
evident, the discretionary relief cannot be extended to such a person, as the
right of opposite party accruing by virtue of the dismissal decree is also
required to be taken care of and as a matter of mere generosity, the petitioner
cannot be favoured with an order of condonation of delay.
As a result, the instant application is rejected, and accordingly, it
stands disposed of.
(S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J) (M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
SANJAY GHOSH Digitally signed by SANJAY GHOSH
Date: 2025.08.14 17:58:20 +05'30'
sanjay
