Sainand Kashinath Dhakne v. Kalpana Sainand Dhakne

1 ca 590.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 590 OF 2015 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL STAMP NO. 28501 OF 2014 Sainand S/o. Kashinath Dhakne .. Applicant

Versus

Kalpana W/o. Sainand Dhakne .. Respondent Shri Ambar S. Barlota, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. P. R. Wankhede, Advocate for the Respondent/Sole. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11253 OF 2014 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL STAMP NO. 28498 OF 2014 Sainand S/o. Kashinath Dhakne .. Applicant

Versus

Kalpana W/o. Sainand Dhakne .. Respondent Shri Ambar S. Barlota, Advocate for the Applicant. Ms. P. R. Wankhede, Advocate for the Respondent/Sole. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 10TH JUNE, 2016.

PER COURT :

.

These are applications for condonation of delay. According

2 ca 590.15 to Mr. Barlota, the learned counsel for the applicant the limitation period would be 90 days and not 30 days as computed by the office. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in a case of S onia Kunwar Singh Bedi Versus Kunwar Singh Bedi reported in 2015 (3) Bom. C. R. 350.

2.

According to Ms. Wankhede, the learned counsel for the respondent the limitation period for filing a family court appeal is 30 days and no sufficient cause is spelt out in applications. 3.

We need not dilate upon the period of limitation. It appears that initially decree was not prepared. One application was filed for certified copy in respect of one matter and thereafter under the impression that one certified copy would suffice, however on instructions second application was required to be filed. 4.

Be that as it may, even as per the office delay is only 41 days. The respondent has not controverted the averments made in applications by filing any affidavit. Considering the reasons stated in applications, applications are allowed. The delay is condoned. The civil applications are disposed of. [ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 16