FAO No. M-236 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. M-236 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.7.2009 Sukhwinder Singh .......... Appellant Versus Kulwinder Kaur ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 19530-CII of 2008 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condoning the delay of 320 days in filing the appeal. The only ground taken for condoning the delay of 320 days is, that the applicant / appellant remained in custody upto 31.8.2008, and the present appeal has been filed immediately after coming to know about the passing of the decree dated 11.8.2007. The reading of the judgment show, that the appellant had appeared in person in Court on 11.4.2007, and he was directed to appear before the Conciliatory Committee on 20.4.2007. There was another direction to the parties to appear before the Conciliatory Committee on FAO No. M-236 of 2008 2 9.5.2007, but the appellant failed to appear on that day and he was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. The learned Matrimonial Court in view of the ex parte evidence led and keeping in view the averments made in the petition went unrebutted, granted a decree of divorce. The decree was passed on 11.8.2007, whereas the present appeal was filed on 25.9.2008. The plea, that the appellant remained in custody till 31.8.2008 stands belied from the fact, that he was only in custody from 31.7.2008 to 31.8.2008 i.e. for a period of one month on account of non-payment of maintenance pendente lite fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The very fact, that the appellant was in custody for non- payment of maintenance fixed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would show, that he intentionally evaded to appear in the matrimonial Court to avoid payment of maintenance allowance, which was likely to be fixed. The ground taken for condonation of delay stands belied from the record. Thus, no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of 320 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. FAO No. M-236 of 2008 Dismissed being time barred. 27.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE