^I^I^FT^N? TO?^l^T^?te WS W^W^» ^^ '^^TPTT^T^, ^NFT^, (^^ ^6;...6)..c^J..../^........."^200^ ^T^T XRW (^i^^) ^TSifepfri'qrq^f^fe^'^^R ^•stiwsn^r Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra. & Hon'bteShriR.N. ChandrakarJJ Aopellant Smt| Seema Pandey, daughter of Har Prasad Panjdey, aged about 30 years. R/o Sector-5 Qua|rter No.A-46, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tahsil & Distj-ict Korba (CG) Respondent Versus Vijai Posi ^ Kumar Pandey, S/o Laxmi Prasad Pan|ley, aged about 33 years, R/o ViMage & First aopeal under S 6.5.2009: Smt Indira Tripathi, tearned Narayanpur, \^a Nandghat, District Durg 19M 1 of the Familv Court Act counsel for the appetlant. Family Court was not inclined to advised to file appeal against the appellant treating that the appli( family Court did not fite any apf about the impugned decree 01 connection with prefemng appeal dated30th November.2007. Shri SunU Otv^ini, tearnaj c<>unsel for the respondenfc Heard on IA No. 01. applJG^tion for condonation of 520 days' delay, as pointed out vide office note dated 2pln December, 2007, in filing this appeal. Learned counsel for the a|3pellant submfts that the afor^aid delay occasjoned as the appellant was| ^dvised by her counsel ttiat the learned ^ss decree of divorce, however, she was not lative decree ofjudieial separation. The for divorce has been dismi^ed by ttie il against ttie impugned order. She teamt when she contacted her counsel in jainst the Judgment and decree of divorce ^f^^ ^yioo, w^rr^T^Nr ^iT^l^I^^W ^TST "4N|Q1<4,. ^Tft^Ko, fs|<ni<-!^< ^^.. *IW^IT g^sp^ •^200^ ^n^i XRW (^t^^) ir^fw? ^^^s^^ ^- ^F?fe!^N^R^f ^ 'ft1^ TtW^K ^? 3JrRlTT 3?I^T On the other hancl. Shri Qlwani, leamed counsel for the respondent, vehemently opposed the above ariplication. We have heard tearned cou From perusal of the record nsel for the parties and perused the record. F the family Court in Civil Suit No.52A/07, it is observed that the respondent jfited the divorce petition on the ground of decree of judfcial separation dat4d 7.4.2C% . After service of notice of the aforesaid petition, the appellanjt appeared before the family Court on 16.10.2007. Her evidence w^s recorded in the said proceedings on 22.11.2007. In para-11 of her dek>osih"on, she has admitted that on 7.4.2006 the respondent was granted a de4ree under Section 10 of <he Hindu Marriage Act and thereafter, her parents|were negotiating with ttie respondent for comproWiteS, however, they did ncjt agree to keep her. Since the impugned judgrr<ent and decree was passed by flie learned family Court in the presence of l^oth the parties and the appellant was fully aware of the aforesaid decree rig|it from the day when the same was drawn, we are of the opinion that there isj no explanation whatsoever by the appellant for filing ttiis appeal with an Inor^linate delay of 520 da^. Accordingly, the application (IA No.01) for condon^tion of delay is rejected. Consequentiy, the appeal is dismissed as barred by 1 Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge aw of limitation. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^mCt^ ^^r 5^rr^r<r^t^Trcf—rs/9S—i i /2008—i,oo,ooo« ir tl