:1: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 295 OF 2008 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL STAMP NO. 22005 OF 2008 Dr. Shri Dattatraya Chokha Gaikwad ..Applicant Vs. 1. Mrs. Rekha @ Gauri Dattatraya Gaikwad and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.D. Thokade for applicant. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & D.G. KARNIK,JJ. Date : February 03, 2009. Date : February 03, 2009. Date : February 03, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard M. Thokade the learned counsel for the applicant-husband. The applicant has filed Family Court Appeal under Stamp No. 22005 of 2008 but belatedly and hence this application for condonation of delay. As per the office note the appeal is beyond time by 4 years and 62 days. 2. The sole ground which is set out in this application for condonation of delay is regarding the :2: pendency of Criminal Application No. 1895 of 2004. The said application came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16/7/2008. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that Criminal Application No. 1895 of 2004 was filed under bonafide mistake and, therefore, the period of pendency of the said application before this court is required to be excluded for counting the period of delay. In the alternative, he submitted that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could be available to the applicant. 3. We are not impressed by any of these submissions. At the first instance Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable for the time spent in civil proceedings. Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 specifically states that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Cr.P.C., 1973, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court, to the High Court and when such a specific provision of appeal was available, the applicant cannot take the plea that under bonafide mistake he filed Criminal :3: Application before this court. 4. We are, therefore, satisfied that no acceptable ground has been made out to condone the delay of 4 years and 62 days and even in matrimonial disputes we cannot be liberal in condoning the delay of more than four years. 5. The application is rejected. (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (D.G. Karnik,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)