BALDEV Vs. DAU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2013 passed by the Family Court, Bikaner in Civil Misc. Case No. 264/2012, is reportedly time-barred by 111 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed with the submissions that against the judgment and order so passed by the Family Court, earlier, a regular first appeal bearing number 209/2013 came to be filed in this Court, which was, obviously, not maintainable and hence, was dismissed and thereafter, this appeal has been filed; and that the time so spent has led to this appeal being delayed by 111 days.

(2.) Having regard to the submissions made, while ignoring the delay, we have considered the matter on merits. Though, ordinarily, such appeals, being essentially in the nature of first appeal, are entertained with notice to the other side and summoning of record but, after having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are unable to find even a wee bit of reason to consider interference in this matter; and are clearly of the opinion that this appeal does not merit admission.

(3.) The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case unfolding in the order impugned could be taken note of, in brief, as follows: The appellants herein are the husband and wife and, out of their wedlock, was born a daughter on 16.06.1996. It is an admitted position that in and around the month of June 2000, the matrimony of the appellants landed in trouble with serious discords, leading to strained relations. The respondent No.1 herein is the son of the sister of the appellant No.1. The respondent No.2 is the wife of the respondent No.1. It has surfaced on the record that due to the discord of the appellants, their minor daughter, then about 4-5 years of tender age, was given in the custody of the respondents, allegedly with the proposition that she, i.e., the daughter, would be handed over back to the appellants after they were able to reconcile; and that the respondents would otherwise ensure the meetings of appellants with their daughter.