LABANYA PATI Vs. SANTANU KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant/appellant-wife and submits, his client is aggrieved by judgment dtd. 25/3/2014 made by the family Court dissolving the marriage and granting paltry sum of rupees three lakhs as permanent alimony. His client, in her financial circumstances, could not prefer the appeal in time. Reported delay of 1911 days be condoned and the appeal admitted.

(2.) Mr. Kejriwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent-husband and opposes the application. He draws attention to his client's objection. In it stands disclosed, inter alia, deposition dtd. 20/12/2014 in cross-examination of applicant-wife, recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge. He points out from paragraph 34, applicant answered in cross-examination, it is a fact that after receipt of notice from the family Court for divorce at instance of her husband, on 22/3/2012 she had filed FIR. He then refers to annexure C1 in the objection, being applicant's application under order IX rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to set aside ex parte impugned judgment. In paragraph 2 she had alleged not receiving any notice of the civil proceeding from the family Court. He submits, applicant is a person who made false statement before the family Court in an application verified by her. In this context he relies on judgment dtd. 13/9/2013 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal nos.8183-8184 of 2013 (Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others), paragraph 15 (Supreme Court Niti Print). He submits, by the paragraph the Supreme Court declared the principles, broadly culled out from several earlier authorities, regarding adjudication of an application for condonation of delay. He relies on clauses (v), (vi) and (viii), reproduced below.

(3.) Perused the application for condonation of delay. We have already noted that applicant had earlier filed for setting aside the judgment as ex parte. The application was dismissed on 27/11/2017. We have ascertained that respondent-husband was noticed in the application but due to default of applicant, it was dismissed. Applicant has said that she came to know about the dismissal on 16/8/2019. She then contacted with local lawyer for filing the matrimonial appeal and it was filed on 17/9/2019.