KANDEESWARAN POORNAMATHI Vs. ESWARAN VIJAYAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition has been filed to condone the delay of 418 days in filing the above un-numbered Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wife would submit that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.12.2005 at Sri Appathalaswamy Temple, Koorapalayam, Nasiyanur, Erode as per Hindu rites and customs in the presence of the well wishers, belonging to both the families and the same was also registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Pollachi. After six days from the marriage, both of them went to United Kingdom. However, in the month of April 2013, due to some mis-understanding between them, they were unable to lead a happy matrimonial life. Thereafter, the respondent went to India in October 2013 and filed a petition in H.M.O.P. No.227 of 2013 for divorce on the file of the Sub Court, Pollachi with some false allegations. The petitioner, after receipt of the notice, contested the case by filing a counter affidavit. After full enquiry, the said H.M.O.P. No.227 of 2013 was dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2017 by the Sub Court, Pollachi. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent, challenging the same, has preferred an Appeal in C.M.A. No.35 of 2017 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, who has granted divorce, finding various aspects that there was a cruelty levelled against the respondent on the basis of the admitted pleadings of the wife that he was taken into custody on the complaint given by the petitioner, reversing the order passed by the Trial Court and dissolving the marriage. Challenging the same, the petitioner has been advised to file this Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal. In the meanwhile, there has been a delay of 418 days in filing the above appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further submit that after the judgment passed by the IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, since the petitioner was residing in United Kingdom along with her mother, who is a widow, she was unable to come to India at the relevant point of time. Moreover the certified copies of the judgment were mis-placed while in transit from United Kingdom to India. Therefore, she requested her counsel to get one more certified copy, after fulfilling the requirements. In this circumstance, the petitioner has been advised to file this petition to condone the delay of 418 days in filing the above C.M.S.A. Therefore, the delay has occurred only due to the reasons mentioned above that being bonafide one, the same could be condoned, failing which, the petitioner would be put to grave prejudice.