Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 74 (JHR)

Pradeep Kumar Singh v. Sahodara Devi

2017-01-10

H.C.MISHRA, S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Interlocutory Application No.5676 of 2016 has been filed for condonation of delay of 179 days in filing the first appeal. The reason for filing the appeal after such an inordinate delay, as stated in the interlocutory application, is that after the impugned order dated 19.9.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhanbad, the appellant was in shock after coming to know about the order and thereafter, the appellant has filed this first appeal. 3. The impugned order dated 19.9.2014 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.16 of 2008 by the Court below, shows that the miscellaneous case was filed in the Court below for setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 15.7.2004 passed in T.M.S No.156 of 1996, whereby the marriage between the parties was dissolved by the decree of divorce by mutual consent, in view of the agreement between the parties, as well as undertaking of the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- per month as alimony to the wife. The said order was challenged in this Court in F.A No.61 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 1.8.2005 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, giving liberty to the appellant to challenge the impugned order before the same Court. Thereafter, after a lapse of three and half years, on 14.11.2008, the miscellaneous case was filed for setting aside the Judgment and Decree, dissolving the marriage between the parties by mutual consent and the order of making payment of Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent wife. 4. The Court below after discussing the entire facts and also taking into consideration the fact that at one point of time, the petitioner had taken the plea of mental imbalance for condonation of delay and at another point of time, he had stated that he was suffering from gastric and weakness as also he was in search of job at Delhi, has dismissed the miscellaneous case by the impugned order dated 19.9.2014. 5. Thus, we find that the said miscellaneous case was also filed after an inordinate delay and the present appeal has also been filed after a lapse of 179 days with the reason that the petitioner was in shock after the impugned order was passed by the Court below. 5. Thus, we find that the said miscellaneous case was also filed after an inordinate delay and the present appeal has also been filed after a lapse of 179 days with the reason that the petitioner was in shock after the impugned order was passed by the Court below. We do not see any cogent ground for condoning the limitation of 179 days in filing the first appeal. 6. Accordingly, the aforesaid I.A No. 5676 of 2016 is dismissed. Consequently, the first appeal also stands dismissed, being hopelessly barred by limitation.