1 caf134.10 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2010 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST.NO.11253 OF 2010 Kuljit Kaur Saini. ....Applicant. Vs. Manmohan Singh Panthlia ....Respondent. Ms. Manisha Menon i/b. M/s. Halai & Co. for applicant. Mr.Ramesh R. Shinde for Respondent. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND A.A.SAYED, JJ DATED:- AUGUST 4, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By this application, it is prayed that delay of 125 days in filing of the appeal be condoned, which has occasioned on account of situation beyond the control of the applicant. It is stated that soon after the impugned decision and when the certified copy became available, she had to search for the lawyer for filing the appeal as her lawyer appearing in the Family Court did not accept the 2 caf134.10 brief. She thereafter, had to rush to her native place at Hoshiarpur, Punjab on account of precarious health condition of her uncle i.e. real brother of the applicant’s father, who eventually, expired in November, 2009. When the applicant returned from her native place, she had to look after her ailing mother who suffered a stroke on or about 26th January, 2010. Besides, the applicant had to look after her minor daughter, who was school going daughter. For all these reasons, the Applicant could not pursue her legal remedy. The delay was unintentional and beyond the control of the applicant. 3. The case so made out by the applicant has been denied by the respondent. The reply affidavit is essentially one of denial. At best, it suggests that in any case, the applicant had sufficient time after she returned from her native place in December, 2009 till 25th January, 2010 and no reason is forthcoming for non filing of the appeal during such time. 4. Indeed, no specific reason has been given by the applicant regarding her inability to file appeal during such period. Nevertheless, reading the application as a whole, it would be evident that the applicant was hardpressed of time and was unable to pursue her legal remedy. Delay so caused, was not intentional at all. In the interest of justice, we are inclined to condone the delay as prayed for, 3 caf134.10 additionally for the reason that the respondent through counsel states that the respondent has not entered into second marriage so far. In that sense, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the delay in filing appeal was to be condoned and the appellant be given opportunity to pursue her legal remedy considering the decree of divorce and dissolution of marriage. Accordingly, Application is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (A.A.SAYED, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)