SANDESH KUMAR Vs. SANDHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A.No.1/2022 for condonation of delay of 565 days in filing the petition.

(2.) In support of the application, an affidavit is filed stating that order was passed on 22/12/2018 in Crl.Misc.No.17/2017. In the meantime, the Family Court passed the judgment and decree dtd. 24/7/2019 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner and rejected the claim of permanent alimony of Rs.25.00 lakhs of respondent No.1 giving the finding that the petitioner has purchased land in the name of respondent No.1, which is worth more than Rs.30.00 lakhs. It is stated that respondent No.1 has initiated the execution proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.71/2019 to enforce the said judgment and decree and the petitioner was served with notice in the month of March, 2020. The petitioner appeared through counsel in Crl.Misc.No.71/2019 and thereafter could not approach the advocate to get legal advice due to outbreak of pandemic Covid-19. It is also sworn to that in the first week of February 2022, when the petitioner approached the Trial Court advocate and sought for legal advice, the advocate advised the petitioner to prefer an appeal before this Hon'ble Court. In the meantime, the petitioner met with an accident on 15/2/2022 and he was under treatment and rest till 6/6/2022 and produced document No.1, the certificate issued by the doctor. Hence, prayed this Court to condone the delay.

(3.) The respondents filed the statement of objections to the said application contending that though it is mentioned that the delay is 565 days, but actually there is a delay of 1369 days in filing the petition. Covid period was exempted and this impugned order was passed in December 2018 and at that time, there was no Covid. After having the knowledge of filing of execution petition in the year 2020 itself to enforce the order, appeared through the counsel and made the payment and afterthought only this petition is filed in 2022. In support of his contention, he has produced Annexures-R1 to R6 and contend that the petitioner has willfully disobeyed the order having the knowledge of the order and though it is stated that the Family Court passed the order dismissing the petition, what prevented him in filing this petition earlier, no reasons are assigned. The averments made in paragraph No.8 are not correct. The certificate produced before the Court evidence the fact that he met with an accident and the nature of injury is only abrasion and he was not an inpatient in the hospital. The document No.1 produced along with the application is created for the purpose of this case. Hence, not entitled for condonation of delay.