^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Division Beneh:Hon'bleShriDhirendraNlishra,& Hon'ble 9hrj Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ, First Appeal (MlNo.42of2009 App^llant Ashish Shrivastava ResDOndent Vs. Smt. Ekta Shrivastava Order for consideration Sd/- Dhu'endra Mishra Judge Hori'bieShri Dhirendra IVIishra, J. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Postforpronouncementoforder on 2--?--04-2010 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge as '"< ••-a1 HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Hon'ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon' ble ShriR.N. Chandrakar, JJ Appellant Respondent o r" First Appeal (M) No. 42 of 2009 Ashish Shrivastava, aged about 30 years, s/o. Shri Surendra Prasad Shrivastava, R/o. Gali No.9, New Rajendra Nagar, Satna(MP). • Versus Smt. Ekta Shrivastava, aged about 26 years, w/o. Ashish Shrivastava, R/o. L- 14, Anupam Nagar, Near T.V. Tower, Raipur(CG). {Appeal underSection 19 ofthe Family Court Act, 1984) Present: Shri ParagKotecha, counsel forthe appellant. None for the respondent though served. ORDER (Passed ono^y'^day ofApril, 2010) Per Ranflnath Chandrakar. J. ;• I.A.No.1 of 2009. This is ah applicatioh for condonationof delay of 736 days in filing the instantappeal. Thecase was filed before the Family Court on 3-10-2006 under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, "the Act"). Notice was served on the appellant/non-applicanton 10-1-2007. Thereafter, the appellanVnon- -/? gpplicant Ashish Shrivastava did not appear before the Family Court, therefore, hewas preceded ex parfe on 3-4-2007 and ex partejudgment was passed on '•\ »l~. 10-5-2007. The respondent/wife did not appear before this Court though served through paper publication. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant did not appear before the Family Court on 10-1-2007 because a criminal case was registered against theappellant on 1-12-2006 atthe instance of .respondent and the appellantapplied for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Ipwer Court as.well as by the 1-ligh Court. Learned counsel further submits thatthe appellant was in jail sinceApril, 2007 till August, 2007 in connection with the some other criminal caseand the same was within the knbwledge of i.the resp'ondent as the production warrantwas issued against the respondent. In the meanwhile, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed which was not within the knowledge ofthe appellant. On perusal of the record, it is ctear that on 15-2-2007, the father of the appellarit namely Shri S.P. Shrivastavaappearing before the Family Court informed thatthe appellant/husbandWasunable to appear before the court and prayed for adjournment. The prayer was allowed and the case was fixed for further proceedings on 16-3-2007. On 16-3-2007 whenthe case was takenup for heari'ng, the appellant did not appear before the Family Courtand thecase was again adjourned for 26-3-2007. On 26-3-2007, the casewas called on twice but none appeared for the appellant and the case was again adjourned for 3-4-2007. When the case was called for hearing on 3-4-2007, neither the /appellant/non-applicantappeared before the Family Court, nor any application fordispensingwith his attendarice was moved till 5.45 pm, therefore, hewas proceeded ex parte in second round of hearing and the case was disposed of on 5-10-2007 by passing an ex parte judgment and decree. ; The appellanVnon-applicant has notshown any sufficient and justified reason for his non-appearance on 10-1-2007, 26-3-2007 & 3-4-2007 and after 1 1-iis release frbm jail theappellaht/non-applicant has not mentioned the steps 'tiaken by him for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree. The appellant v .s;~. :i. . ::.l: • has not properly explained the delay of 736 days in filing the instant appealand even no docurhent has been annexedin supportofhis argurnents. Having co.nsidered all the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the order sheets of the Family Court, we are of the opinion that the appellant failed to explain the delay of 736 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the application for condonation ofdelay in filing the present appeal is rejec^ed and consequently, the appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation. Sd/- Dhu'endra Mishra Judge Sd/- . R.N. Chandrakar Judge •\