1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL (Stamp) NO. 9759 OF 2010 Smt. Sangeeta Sandeep Pardeshi. ... ... Applicant. Versus Sandeep Balkrishna Pardeshi. ... ... Respondent. Mr. Sunil R. More for the Applicant. The Respondent present-in-person. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR and A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 14TH JUNE, 2010. P. C.: Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the respondent, who is appearing in person. 2. By this application, the applicant prays for condoning delay of 1 year and 257 days in filing of appeal against the exparte decree dated 3rd April, 2008. According to the applicant, passing of the said exparte decree came to the knowledge of the applicant on 1st July, 2008. On the same date she took steps for applying for the certified copy of the decree. However, formal application for setting aside the exparte decree came to be filed before the trial Court only on 12th September, 2008. The said application was rejected by the trial Court on 22nd 2 December, 2009. Nonetheless, the applicant chose to file the present appeal only on 1st April, 2010. The explanation for delay given in the application is not sufficient to justify the inaction of the applicant in failing to rush to this Court by way of present appeal after the decision dated 22nd December, 2009. The only explanation given by the applicant is that the mother of the applicant, who was a senior citizen, was seriously ill, which prevented the applicant from pursuing the proceeding. Such a vague plea cannot be countenanced. It appears that the appellant is taking out proceedings only to deny the respondent of the reliefs granted in his favour by the trial Court as back as in April, 2008. 3. Significantly, the applicant has not challenged the order passed by the lower court dated 22nd December, 2009 rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside exparte decree. In that sense the explanation offered by the applicant for delay between the passing of the decree and the institution of the application for setting aside the exparte decree has been rejected. That opinion has attained finality. 4. In view of the above, we find no merit in this application. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a result, the appeal and the companion application for maintenance will not survive. Sd/- Sd/- (A. A. SAYED, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)