Kanchan Vishwasrao Gongale v. Devendra Pandurang Ingole
1 / 3 7.caa51.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAA) NO. 51 OF 2025 IN A.O. (ST) NO. 23435 OF 2025 Kanchan Vishwasrao Ghongale Vs.
Devendra Pandurang Ingole ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Vijay Hamand, Advocate h/f Mr. Digvijay P. Mankar, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. M.N. Ali, Advocate for respondent.
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 11.12.2025 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of around 378 days in filing appeal against order.
2.
The dispute pertains to the custody of a minor child. The applicant is the mother. She has stated that in the application, she was not aware about the proceedings that were ongoing against her and knowledge of the proceedings was gathered only upon receiving notice in the execution proceedings.
2 / 3 7.caa51.2025 3.
It is stated that after gathering knowledge about the judgment impugned in the present appeal, she collected the relevant documents and thereafter, approached an Advocate for filing of the appeal. Therefore, the delay has been caused in filing the appeal.
4.
The respondent has filed reply opposing the application. It is stated in the reply that the applicant was duly served with the notice in the proceedings before the learned trial Court.
5.
The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the judgment passed by the learned trial Court to demonstrate that the learned trial Court has recorded that the notice was duly served. It is also stated that the custody of the minor child is with the applicant/mother and that visitation rights were granted to the respondent/father by an interim order passed by the learned trial Court and as such, the statement of the applicant that she was not aware of the pending proceedings, is completely incorrect.
6.
Although there is a substance in the objection raised by the respondent, since the matter pertains to the custody of the child and having
3 / 3 7.caa51.2025 regard to the legal position that right to appeal is a substantive legal right, in the considered opinion of this Court, the application for condonation of delay should be allowed.
7.
It is also necessary to keep in mind that the minor child should not suffer for laxity on the part of mother/applicant.
8.
The application is allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)