ROHIT KALIA Vs. MEENAKSHI YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of the delay of 823 days in filing the connected First Appeal under Sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, against Judgment and Order dtd. 16/5/2019, passed by the learned Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (J), Khliehriat, in Mat (Divorce) Suit No. 3 of 2018, granting a decree of divorce to the respondent. The applicant in the petition has detailed the sequence of events and has tendered explanations for consideration of this Court, as to the reasons for the delay.

(2.) Mr. Philemon Nongbri, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had been convicted and sentenced in September 2018, to five years rigorous imprisonment at District Jail, Gurugram, for offences under Sec. 307 IPC, and during his period of incarceration, the respondent wife had instituted divorce proceedings on 3/12/2018, which went ex-parte against the applicant, and resulted in Judgment and Order dtd. 16/5/2019, allowing the dissolution of marriage, and granting the respondent a permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000.00 (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) only. It is submitted that, a review being Review Petition No. 1 of 2019, was filed by the respondent seeking review of the Judgment and Order dtd. 16/5/2019, and in the said review, notice was received by the applicant who then entered his appearance, which was taken note of by the Court below vide its order dtd. 30/8/2019. He submits that the Review Application was then rejected, and disposed of by order dtd. 31/3/2022, and though other supplemental proceedings were taken up for recall of the ex-parte judgment, the same did not result in any favourable orders. The main points he contends are that, in the main Divorce Suit, which had been decreed ex-parte, it was an admitted fact that the address of the applicant was incorrectly shown therein, which had resulted in him not being served, thus the matter proceeded ex-parte, and that the other reason this Court could not be approached on time was due to COVID restrictions, which the Supreme Court in this respect, had passed an order on 10/1/2022, excluding the period 15/3/2020 to 28/2/2022, to be reckoned for the purposes of limitation. He submits that as the applicant was in prison, and due to the other factors earlier mentioned, sufficient reasons and cause had been shown for the delay to be condoned by this Court, and the Appeal admitted for consideration.

(3.) Mr. P. Yobin, learned counsel for the respondent has strongly resisted the condonation application and has submitted that the actual delay is 1512 days and not 823 days as submitted by the applicant. He submits that the applicant was well aware about the order dtd. 16/5/2019, as he had entered appearance in the Review Application filed by the respondent, on 30/8/2019, before the same Court and in fact, that the applicant had knowledge is also reflected in an order dtd. 19/11/2019 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He therefore submits that, the applicant being aware about the Judgment dtd. 16/5/2019, as far back as on 30/8/2019, and having preferred the First Appeal only on 5/10/2023, no sufficient cause had been made out to warrant the exercise of discretionary powers of this Court, to condone the delay. The learned counsel has also submitted that the applicant had been convicted for trying to set on fire the respondent wife, which resulted in her sustaining severe burns, which required extensive treatment, which involved considerable costs.