Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1645 (MAD)

V. Sivasankar @ Jacob v. A. Marry Prema

2022-06-22

S.SOUNTHAR, V.M.VELUMANI

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: C.M.P.No.2611 of 2022 is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 877 days in filing the C.M.A.SR.No.956 of 2022. C.M.A.SR.No.956 of 2022 is filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the order and decree dated 19.06.2019 made in I.A.No.6028 of 2018 in O.P.No.1391 of 2018 on the file of the IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.) V.M. Velumani, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the entire materials on record. 2. The petitioner / husband filed O.P.No.1391 of 2018 for dissolution of the marriage between the petitioner and 1st respondent conducted on 18.01.2006. In the said O.P., the 1st respondent / wife filed I.A.No.6028 of 2018 for interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards educational expenses of respondents 2 & 3. In the said I.A.No.6028 of 2018, the petitioner filed counter affidavit and after contest, the learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, by the order dated 19.06.2019, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- each as interim maintenance to the respondents and a sum of Rs.2,000/- each for the respondents 2 & 3 towards educational expenses. 3. Challenging the said order dated 19.06.2019 made in I.A.No.6028 of 2018, the petitioner filed appeal in C.M.A.SR.No.956 of 2022. 4. According to the petitioner, during Pooja Holidays, the entire office case bundle was cleaned and during that process, the bundle in O.P.No.1391 of 2018 has been traced and hence, the delay of 877 days has occurred in filing the C.M.A.SR.No.956 of 2022. 5. From the materials on record, it is seen that the respondents filed an application in I.A.No.6028 of 2018 in O.P.No.1391 of 2018 for a direction to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards educational expenses along with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as monthly interim maintenance. The learned Judge, after considering the averments in the affidavit and counter affidavit filed in the said I.A., by the order dated 19.06.2019, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- each to the respondents towards interim maintenance and a sum of Rs.2,000/- each for the respondents 2 & 3 towards educational expenses. The petitioner was aware of the order passed in I.A.No.6028 of 2018 in the year 2019 itself. The petitioner was aware of the order passed in I.A.No.6028 of 2018 in the year 2019 itself. Inspite of the same, he has neither paid interim maintenance so ordered or filed appeal challenging the said order within the time limit. The reason given by the petitioner in the affidavit for condoning the delay of 877 days in filing the appeal is not valid and acceptable. 6. It is well settled that the application for condoning the delay must be considered liberally and length of delay is not a criteria. The Court must see whether the parties have given acceptable and valid reason and the intention of the parties is bonafide and should not prejudice the other side. The parties should not be shut down at the threshold itself and they must be given an opportunity to put forth their case on merits. In the present case, the reason given by the petitioner is not bonafide and cannot be accepted. The petitioner has not made out any case for condoning the delay. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay of 877 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, C.M.P.No.2611 of 2022 stands dismissed and consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.956 of 2022 is rejected. No costs.