IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ M.F.A. No.6147/2018 (MC) BETWEEN:
MR. K.A. DEEPAK S/O. K.S. ANANDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PWD CONTRACTOR, R/O. BAKKA, BETTAGIRI VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 576 301. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI RAJARAM SOORYAMBAIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT. A.V. DHANYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O. K.K. VASUDEVA, W/O. K.A. DEEPAK, NOW TEMPORARILY WORKING AS BHALBAVAN TEACHER IN WOMENS AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, AT MADIKERI, R/O. PALOOR VILLAGE AND POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 576 301. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 28(1) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 14.12.2017 PASSED IN MC.NO.25/2015 ON THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, KODAGU MADIKERI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1) (IA) OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
J U D G M E N T There is a delay of 111 days in filing this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay is due to bona fide and unintentional reasons on account of the ill-health of the appellant and the same may be condoned as the appellant has a good case on merits. That the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and decree of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent/wife in M.C.No.25/2015, dated 14/12/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Kodagu at Madikeri. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant is interested in leading a marital life with the respondent.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is gross delay in filing this appeal. That the impugned judgment and decree of divorce was granted by the Court below on 14/12/2017, but the appeal has been filed on 25/07/2018 after a long gap of seven months. That in the interregnum on 04/07/2018, the respondent has married and she is leading a happy marital life. At this belated stage, appellant cannot seek to assail the judgment and decree of the Court below. He further submits that there is no merit in the appeal.
4. In the circumstances, we have considered the application seeking condonation of delay in light of the aforesaid submission. We have perused the affidavit of the appellant filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay. On perusal of the same, it is noted that at paragraph No.3, the appellant has sought to explain the delay in the following terms:
“3. I further submit that, I was not in good health and was unable to obtain further legal remedy and I couldn’t able to approach the local advocate even after passing the judgment and decree before the Hon’ble Court at Madikeri District. Hence, there is delay in filing the above appeal before this Hon’ble Court. After the advice by the well-wishers and local advocate, that an appeal could filed before this Hon’ble Court for enhancement and with financial help from the Well-wishers the relatives, I have approached the High Court advocate to file this appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is bonafide and not with any deliberate intention, I regret the inconvenience caused to this Hon’ble Court. If the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, I will be put to great mental hardship and mental agony. On the other hand, if the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is allowed, no harm or prejudice would be caused to the respondent.”
On a reading of the same, we find that the explanation offered is vague and not supported by any medical document and further, the reasons assigned are not sufficient in law so as to condone 111 days delay in filing this appeal. Further, the respondent has married again and third party rights have been created. In the circumstances, the application I.A.No.1/2018 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/18 also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE S*