.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2003 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (S) NO. 26293 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.N.R. Bubna for the applicant. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 7TH JANUARY 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. : . Heard Mr.Bubna for the applicant who has filed F.C.A. (S) No.26293 of 2003. However, the said appeal is filed belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. As per the office note, the appeal is beyond time by one year and 20 days. . As per the applicant, he came to know about the order passed by the Family Court only when he received the notice of execution and that he is an elderly - 2 - person. We have noted from the impugned order that the applicant had appeared before the Family Court, filed written statement at Exhibit-1 and thereafter he was negligent in defending the claim. The applicant also remained absent before the Family Court as per the report at Exhibit-6. It appears that from 8th February 2001, the applicant remained absent continuously before the Family Court. In any case, the respondent is the widowed daughter-in-law of the applicant and the Family Court has directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to the said daughter-in-law from June 2000 onwards. There is no averment that even part payment of maintenance amount has been made till this date. . We do not find any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal and, in our view, the appeal suffers from inordinate delay. Hence, the application is rejected. Consequently, registration of First Appeal (S) No.26293 of 2003 is refused. - 3 - (D.G. KARNIK, J.) (B.H. MARLAPPALE, J.)