ORDER 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2003 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Dhar in Civil Suit No. 42-A/0 I, whereby divorce petition filed by the respondent on the ground of cruelty was allowed and a decree of divorce was passed, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Since the appeal is barred by 281 days, therefore, an application for condonation of delay is filed. The reason for condoning the delay assigned in the application is that after passing of the decree on 11.12.2003 appellant approached her Counsel Mr. Suresh Raj Purohit, who was contesting the case on her behalf before the learned Court below. It was alleged that all the necessary documents were given by her to the learned counsel who assured that the appeal shall be filed before this Court. It is submitted that thereafter, appellant came to know on 28.10.2004 in the proceedings of maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, that no appeal has been filed by the learned counsel. It is further alleged that thereafter again after obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree the appeal was filed by the appellant on 16.12.2004. It is submitted that delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. This application has been opposed by Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent, alleging that all the allegations made in the application are false. It is submitted that in the proceedings filed by the respondent under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code appellant has given the statement on oath and was cross-examined. In her statement she has stated that she has not filed any appeal against the decree of divorce dated 11.12.2003. It is submitted that her statement was recorded before the learned JMFC, Ratlam on 28.12.2004. It is submitted that since appellant has submitted false affidavit, therefore, appellant deserves to be prosecuted and the application and also the appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that her statement was recorded before the learned JMFC, Ratlam on 28.12.2004. It is submitted that since appellant has submitted false affidavit, therefore, appellant deserves to be prosecuted and the application and also the appeal deserves to be dismissed. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Mahesh Bhardwaj v. Smita Bhardwaj, reported in AIR 1995 Rajasthan 47, wherein in a matrimonial case the appeal was filed with an -application for condonation of delay on the ground that appellant came to know of order under appeal balatedly and from record it was found that appellant had knowledge of date fixed for order, it was held that plea of late knowledge is not tenable. 4. Further reliance is placed on a decision of Hon 'ble apex Court in the matter of Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newatia, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 367 , wherein the Hon 'ble apex Court has held that in a case where false statement deliberately made in affidavit before Supreme Court that the property in question had not been sold by him in compliance with the order of injunction issued by High Court, it was held that it amounts to contempt of Court. 5. There is no application of the respondent for prosecuting the appellant under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. Only on the basis that the appellant has submitted the affidavit before this Court, wherein it has been stated that appellant engaged Mr. Suresh Raj Purohit, advocate for filing the appeal and has given statement before JMFC, Ratlam wherein she has admitted that she has not filed any appeal, it cannot be said that a case is made out for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellant. 6. From perusal of the record it appears that there are no mala fides on the part of appellant in not filing the appeal in time. The explanation given by the appellant in not filing the appeal in time in a matrimonial matter appears to be just and proper. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay stands condoned. 7. Heard on IA No. 3797/08, which is an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, wherein appellant intends to amend the written statement. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case the application filed by the appellant for condonation of delay is allowed. Delay stands condoned. 7. Heard on IA No. 3797/08, which is an application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, wherein appellant intends to amend the written statement. The amendment which has been proposed is in two parts. First part relates to filing of a case against the respondent under section 406 of IPC and also under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. The second part relates to permanent alimony. 8. This application has been opposed by the respondent. It is submitted that at such a belated stage the application cannot be allowed and deserves to be dismissed. . 9. Another application filed by the appellant is marked as IA No.3795/08, wherein the prayer is for grant of maintenance. In the said application it is alleged that respondent is working with Cooperative Society and is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. It is submitted that maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month be awarded and a sum of Rs. 2,000/- be awarded towards litigation expenses. 10. Reply of all the applications is filed, wherein. it is alleged that after taking divorce on 11.12.2003 respondent has remarried on 22.4.2004. It is also submitted that the salary of the respondent is Rs. 5,000/- per month for which certificate of the Society dated 13.4.2008 has been filed. Learned counsel submits that proceedings were initiated by the appellant for maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, which was dismissed by JMFC, Ist Class and the order was affirmed in revision by the Sessions Court. It is submitted that both the applications deserves to be dismissed. 11. So far as the decree relating to divorce is concerned, appellant who is present in Court and her advocate submits that since the parties are living separately since last so many years, therefore, appellant is not challenging that part of the decree. 12. In view of the statement made by the appellant and her counsel, the validity of the decree passed by the learned Court below, whereby the decree of divorce has been passed is not required to be examined by this Court. 13. 12. In view of the statement made by the appellant and her counsel, the validity of the decree passed by the learned Court below, whereby the decree of divorce has been passed is not required to be examined by this Court. 13. So far as amendment application is concerned, first part of the application, which relates to filing of case against the respondent under sections 406, Indian Penal Code and 498-A, Indian Penal Code is concerned, it has no relevance, therefore, that part of the amendment cannot be allowed to be incorporated. So far as the subsequent part is concerned which relates to permanent alimony, the application is allowed to that extent. Appellant is permitted to carryout the amendment in the written statement before the learned trial Court. Since the appellant is not disputing the decree of divorce and no permanent alimony has been fixed by the learned Court below and the amendment application has been filed by the appellant before this Court, wherein certain facts has been stated, which requires evidence. Hence the case is remanded back to the learned Court below for the purpose of fixing the permanent alimony. 14. So far as the IA No. 3795/08, which is an application for maintenance is concerned, from the record it is evident that interim maintenance was fixed by the learned JMFC, Ratlam @ Rs. 400/- per month, which was paid by the respondent from 2001 to 2004, till final order was passed. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed by the appellant for maintenance is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 700/- per month to the appellant till the case is finally decided. The amount of maintenance shall be payable to the appellant w.e.f. 1.5.2008, which shall be deposited by the respondent in the bank account of appellant. Particulars of the bank account shall be supplied by the appellant to the respondent through counsel. 15. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Court below on 24.6.2008.