JUDGMENT 1. - This matter came up for orders on an application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 918 days in filing an appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act giving challenge to the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Rajsamand in Civil Misc. Case No.79/1999. 2. By judgment dated 22.1.2004 learned District Judge, Rajsamand while accepting an application preferred by respondent Smt. Bali Devi under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act directed the appellant to make payment of a sum of Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance to Smt. Bali w.e.f. 2.8.1999. 3. To press the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it is contended that the appellant failed to file the appeal within the limitation prescribed as he was terminated from service, as such, he was having no source of earning. The relevant portion i.e. termed as ground for condonation of delay mentioned in the application reads as follows:- "That thereafter the services of the appellant were also terminated and he was rendered jobless and sourceless, and since then he is having no earning source and is fully dependent on his parents. The appellant made all efforts for borrow some money from his relations to challenge the order of learned Trial Court but he failed in his efforts and could not manage the funds to engage a lawyer and to file the appeal. And for these reasons the appellant could not approached this Hon'ble Court within the limitation period." 4. In reply to the application it is stated that as a matter of fact the appellant was never terminated from service but was voluntarily retired under a scheme sponsored by the employer. A statement is also placed on record by the respondent to substantiate that a net amount of Rs.5,14,556/- was paid to the appellant by the employer on 15.2.2003, as such the ground taken for condonation of delay is false. 5. The fact about voluntary retirement and receipt of a sum of Rs.5,14,556/- by the employer as a consequent of retirement under a scheme is not denied by the appellant. 5. The fact about voluntary retirement and receipt of a sum of Rs.5,14,556/- by the employer as a consequent of retirement under a scheme is not denied by the appellant. The appellant, only few months prior to disposal of the application that was decided on 22.1.2004, received an amount of Rs.5,14,556/-, thus,3 it is apparent that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is based on a false ground and, therefore, the same deserves to be rejected. 6. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed, consequent thereto, the appeal also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******