IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL First Appeal No. 73 of 2006 Smt. Somi Devi W/o Sri Brahmpal Singh D/o Late Sri Basanta Singh R/o Village Majri Grant, Lal Tappar, P.O. Resham Majri, Pargna Parwadoon District Dehradun. .……Plaintiff/Appellant. Versus Brahmpal Singh S/o Sri Baburam R/o Village Bhagwanpur Majra Sisauna P.O. Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. ……Defendant/Respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Sri Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, present for the applicant / respondent. (2) This is Delay Condonation Application No. 2063 of 2009, moved in MCC Recall Application No. 161 of 2009, for recall of judgment and decree, passed by this Court on 26.12.2007, in First Appeal No. 73 of 2006. (3) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the order passed by this Court and also 2 perused the affidavit regarding delay in filing the recall application. (4) Brief facts of the case are that Opposite Party Somi Devi filed a petition for divorce before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, which was registered as Suit No. 112 of 2002 and dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2006. She preferred an appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984, before this Court, which was registered as First Appeal No. 73 of 2006. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.12.2007, the first appeal was allowed. The applicant (respondent in appeal) failed to turn up or put in his appearance through his counsel even after notices were served on him in the appeal. He did not contest suit even before trial court. (5) The recall application and delay condonation application are being filed after more than a year of the decree of divorce, passed by this Court. In Para 3 of the affidavit, it is admitted by the applicant that he did receive the notice in the appeal. He has further stated in the affidavit that he engaged the counsel, who did not turn up in Court. It is hard to believe that the applicant (respondent in appeal) after receipt of the notices instructed his lawyer locally and never bothered to see for more than a year what has happened in the appeal, filed by his wife. We are not satisfied with the explanation relating to delay, in a case of the kind of matrimonial dispute. This Court is also conscious of the fact that after a decree of divorce 3 attains finality, generally the party seeking the divorce gets married. (6) In the circumstances and for the reasons as discussed above, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Also, recall application is dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 01.04.2009 NS