1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1112 OF 2009 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office } Memoranda of Coram, } Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's } orders or directions } and Registrar's orders } ___________________________}___________________________________ Renuka V. Ghule – Palve , Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. Manish V. Ghatge, Counsel for Respondent. ........................ [ CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. ] DATE :20th AUGUST,2009 1. Heard Renuka V. Ghule – Palve learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Manish V. Ghatge learned counsel for respondent. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-wife challenges the Order dated 5/1/2009 passed by the District Judge – 2, Parbhani in M.A.R.J.I.No. 131 of 2007. 2 3. The brief facts of the matter are that : The Respondent – husband filed petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was allowed by Civil Judge (J.D. ), Parbhani in H.M.P. No. 37 of 2006 on 27/4/2007. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the District and Sessions Judge, Parbhani. There was delay in preferring said Appeal and, therefore, petitioner filed M.A.R.J.I. No. 131 of 2007 for condonation of 191 days delay in filing Appeal, mainly on the ground of lack of knowledge, communication as well as mental and physical disturbances. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submitted that the respondent filed his affidavit in reply dated 6/8/2009 to the application for condonation of delay filed by petitioner, in which it is categorically stated that the respondent intimated petitioner about the Judgment and decree passed by the Court in Petition Under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act on four occasions namely 25/5/2007, 9/6/2007, 27/6/2007 and 25/7/2007. There is no denial on the part of petitioner about 3 this fact. This itself shows that the petitioner in spite of knowledge of Judgment and Decree passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) at Parbhani in H.M.P. No. 37 of 2006, failed and neglected to take immediate steps to prefer Appeal. Though the Courts are always liberal in condoning delay, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find that this is a fit case to condone the delay of 191 days in preferring Appeal. In spite of knowledge about the judgment and Decree passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Parbhani under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, petitioner failed to take appropriate steps. In the mean while, she attended Family Court on several occasions. 4. Considering these facts, I do not find any reason to interfere in the Order dated 5/1/2009 passed by the District Judge – 2, Parbhani in M.A.R.J.I. No. 131 of 2007 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. [ K.K. TATED, J. ] knp/WP1112.09