← Library
Bombay High CourtCAO/1507/2014admittedallwdgrantedrule absolute

Sau. Jayashree @ Maya W/O Suresh Walke v. Shri Suresh S/O Santoshrao Walke

2015-02-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice B.R. Gavai,Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula R. Bhatkar2 pages

02.02.caf.1507.14.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1507/2014 IN F.A. (ST)NO.20173/2014 (Sou. Jayashree @ Maya w/o Suresh Walke vs. Shri Suresh Santoshrao Walke) & CIVIL APPLICATION (F) NO. 142/2014 IN A.O.NO.....2014 ( (Sou. Jayashree @ Maya w/o Suresh Walke vs. Shri Suresh Santoshrao Walke) .......................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Arun S.Agrawal, Adv.for applicant/ appellant Mr. P.S. Sadavarte, Adv.for respondent CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & Mrs. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

DATED : 2nd February, 2015.

Heard.

The above-referred Applications seek condonation of delay. As per the office, the delay is of 39 days; whereas as per Shri Sadavarte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, the delay is of 99 days.

By means of these Appeals, the appellant is challenging the order passed by the learned Family Court passing a decree of divorce. Both the applications are opposed by Shri Sadavarte with his usual vehemence contending that no valid reason is given for condonation of delay.

02.02.caf.1507.14.

The Appeals arise out of matrimonial dispute. The reason given in the application is that certain part of the affidavit evidence was not available and when this fact came to know of the applicant, she applied for obtaining certified copy of the evidence. On receipt of such affidavit evidence, she approached the counsel in the High Court was contacted who took some time for filing the Appeal.

In that view of the matter, we find that the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

Both the Applications for condonation of delay are allowed. Delay is condoned.

Post the Appeals for admission after two weeks. JUDGE JUDGE sahare