JUDGMENT : Jyoti Saran, J. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Subodh Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Re: I.A. No. 2838 of 2017 With M.A. No. 321 of 2017 2. This interlocutory application is filed for condonation of delay of 12 years 8 months and 4 days. 3. In normal circumstances taking note of the nature of dispute engaging this Court in the present appeal we would have been persuaded to consider the prayer made for condonation of delay but having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the statements made by Mr. Prasad objecting to the prayer made for condonation on grounds that a serious attempt has been made by the appellant to mislead this Court, the submissions advanced, do not persuade us to grant indulgence. 4. The charge that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands made by the respondent would be confirmed from the statements made by the appellant at different stages of the proceedings. While at paragraph 3 of the condonation application the appellant has said that it is when she filed a Miscellaneous Case No. 92 of 2010 seeking maintenance for herself and her son on 26.08.2010 before the Family Court, Bhagalpur and the respondent herein appeared to contest the same that she became aware of the fact that a decree for divorce by mutual consent has been passed, in paragraph 4 of the application for condonation of delay she submits that on gathering such information she started inquiring into the matter and it is only in November, 2016 when the records could be traced out that she became aware of the decree passed by the Family Court below and when she filed a Miscellaneous Petition No. 12 of 2016 for setting aside the ex parte judgment. The submission of Mr. Prasad that the appellant has brazenly tried to mislead this Court by giving incorrect statements is further fortified by her statement made in paragraph 11 of the memo of appeal in which on affidavit she says that she neither filed the Matrimonial Case No. 17 of 1998 nor appointed any lawyer. In paragraph 12 of the memo of appeal she perpetuates her misleading conduct by stating that the matrimonial case so filed was false, fabricated and without her consent. 5. In paragraph 12 of the memo of appeal she perpetuates her misleading conduct by stating that the matrimonial case so filed was false, fabricated and without her consent. 5. We would do no better but to only refer to the statements made by this appellant in a criminal case so instituted by her under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which was recorded as back as on 09.01.2007 which amply explain her conduct and runs under: ^^rykd dk dsl pyk Fkk ftldk dsl la[;k&17@98 Fkk A rykd okys eqdnek esa eSaus viuh ‘kknh dh rkjh[k 5@@1993 crk;h Fkh ,oa vius csVk dk tUe rkjh[k 25-1-1996 crk;h Fkh vius csVs dk tUe rkjh[k Qjojh 1996 fy[kkbZ gS A rykd okys eqdnek esa ;g ckr r;h dh ^^eSa vius ifr ls 20-10-1995 ls vyx jgrh gwWa fy[kkbZ FkhA rykd okys eqdnek esa tks fMØh dk ttesaV esa Hkh fy[kk gS fd eSa vius ifr ls 20-10-1995 ls vyx jgrh Fkh A fnukad&18-5-1998 dks tks esVªheksfu;y dsl u0&17@98 nkf[ky fd;k x;k mlesa mlds lkFk gh ,d le>kSrk i= Hkh rS;kj gqvk ftl ij esjk ,ao esjs ifr dk gLrk{kj gqvk ftl xokg ds :i esa fou; lkg ,oa jkts’k lkg us Hkh viuk&viuk nLr[kr fd;k Fkk A le>kSrk i= esa r; vuqlkj rhu gtkj :i;k eq>s ugha fn;k x;k A mijksDr :i;k rhu gtkj vf/koDrk vkse Ádk’k vxzoky ftEes yxk fn;k x;k fd rykd ds ckn fMØh lquus ij og :i;k eq>s fey tk;xk ysfdu og :i;k vkt rd ugha feyk gS A ;g r; gqvk Fkk fd vius esaVusal dk psd eq>s flQZ c;kyhl lkS :i;k feysxk vkSj mlds ckn eSa vius Hkj.k&iks”k.k gsrq :i;k ugha ekaxqxh A ;g r; gqvk Fkk fd esjk ukckfyx cPpk esjs ikl jgsxk A vxj cPpk dk [kpZ Hkjus esa eSa vleFkZ jgwWaxh rks cPpk esjs ifr dks ns fn;k tk;xk vkSj esjk ifr gh ml cPpk dk lkjk [kpZ pyk;xk A ;g ckr r; gqbZ Fkh A rykd ,oa le>kSrk dk dkxt Hkkxyiqj dpgjh esa cuk Fkk A gekjk dksbZ ‘kiFk&i= U;k;y; lg uksVjh ds le{k ugha cuk Fkk A rykd dk eqdnek nkf[ky gksus ls X;kjg fnu ds ckn ;g ÁLrqr vijkf/kd dsl lh-ts-,e-Hkkxyiqj ds dksVZ esa nkf[ky fd;k x;k A ¼10½ ,slh ckr ugha gS fd i<+ le> dj eSaus le>kSrk i= ds ‘kiFk&i= ij ,oa le>kSrk i= ij viuk nLr[kr dh Fkh A ,slh ckr ugha gS fd flfoy dksVZ Hkkxyiqj esa rykd eqtqj gks x;k gS A ,slh ckr ugha gS fd mijksDr dksVZ ls fnukad&9-7-2004 dks rykd dk QSlyk gks x;k gS A ,slh ckr ugha gS fd rykd gks tkus ds ckr eSa tku cq> dj fNik jgh gwWa A^^ 6. It is under the orders of this Court that the lower Court records were summoned and has been received and does confirm the fact that the matrimonial case was filed by the appellant for a decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act with full consciousnesses and she continued to pursue the matter since after its filing on 18.05.1998 until 20.06.2002. It is thereafter that she chose to abandon the proceeding and pursue the criminal case so instituted bearing G.R. No. 1954 of 1998 arising from Rupauli (Ishipur) P.S. Case No. 173 of 1998. The deposition made by the father of the appellant in the criminal case has also been placed on record by the respondent and as back as in 2005 even he has accepted knowledge about passing decree in the matrimonial case. The deposition is enclosed at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 7. In our opinion, apart from the fact that the application for consent divorce was not only presented by the parties on 20.06.1998 but also pursued thereafter until 2002 is sufficient indication, not only towards the willingness of the parties to a consented divorce but also confirms the seriousness with which the appellant, as petitioner before the Court below, pursued the matter. In such circumstances, the stand taken by the appellant before this Court feigning lack of knowledge about the decree as well as regarding filing of the two matrimonial cases itself, is a rather serious attempt to obtain an order from this Court by making misleading statements. We were persuaded to draw appropriate proceedings against the appellant for swearing a false affidavit before this Court but with much restraint we refrain from doing so considering the nature of dispute as well as her status. 8. For the reasons so discussed, we are not persuaded to accept the prayer of the appellant for condonation of delay which is accordingly rejected. 9. I.A. No. 2838 of 2017 is accordingly rejected. Consequently, M.A. No. 321 of 2017 is dismissed. 10. Let the lower court records be returned to the Court below forthwith in a sealed cover.