1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 378 of 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST.NO.14757 of 2006 Mini Chandrahasan .. Applicant versus P.K. Chandrahasan .. Respondent ... Mrs.Asha Nair i/b M/s.Mahesh Menon for the applicant. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE AND D.G. KARNIK, JJ DATED : 30th January 2009 P.C.: . Heard Mrs.Nar, the learned counsel for the applicant wife. . The applicant filed Family Court Appeal St.no.14757 of 2006 but belatedly and therefore, Civil Application no.249 of 2006 was filed for 2 condonation of delay (70 days as per the office note). On 12th February 2007, none was present for the applicant but this court was pleased to issue notice returnable after six weeks. The notice could not be served. Civil Application no.249 of 2006 again appeared before the court on 26th March 2007 and a fresh notice was issued on a fresh copy and payment of Bhatta charges. It was made returnable after six weeks and none was present for the applicant on that day. The learned advocate for the applicant did not pay Bhatta charges and did not supply copies of appeal memo for issuance of notice. On 11th June 2007, this court passed a conditional order granting time to remove office objections within two weeks failing which the appeal/application would stand dismissed without further reference to the court. No steps were taken within two weeks and consequently Civil Application no.249 of 2006 came to be dismissed for non prosecution on account of the conditional order dated 11th June 2007. . This application has been presented on or about 18th December 2008 for restoration. The office note states that it is beyond time by one year and 189 days. The only ground taken in the application in respect of the prayer for condonation of delay is that the applicant was not aware of the common order 3 dated 11th June 2007. However, we have noticed that all along, none appeared for the applicant before the conditional order was passed and no steps were taken to remit the bhatta charges despite more than one opportunity having been granted. . Even otherwise, the appeal filed is against a decree of divorce by consent of the parties. Section 19(2) of the Family Court Act 1984 states that no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties. Hence even otherwise, the appeal filed by the applicant is not maintainable. . Application is rejected. . Appeal under Stamp No. 14757 of 2006 stands refused. (D.G. KARNIK, J) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J)