1 CRA NO.1103/1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.1103 OF 1997 SINDUBAI RAMKRISHNA JAYBHAYE VERSUS RAMKRISHNA MARUTI JAYBHAYE ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. NS Patil, Adv. h/for Mr.S M Godsay Mr.NK Kakade, Advocate for Respondent : ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard. Perused the record. Petitioner/wife by the present revision has challenged the order of learned District Judge, below Exhibit-1 in Misc. CA No.265/1994, refusing to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, challenging the decree of divorce recorded against her. 2) The marital tie between the petitioner – Sindhubai and respondent – Ramkrishna, was knotted on 25th May, 1967. They had brief cohabitation and got estranged relations. Consequently, as per the record, the petitioner/wife left the matrimonial abode in 1972 and she was residing separately. On this and other grounds, the matrimonial tie was said to be severed by the husband. Notices of such matrimonial proceedings were served upon the wife. The matter was adjourned from time to time and thereafter, learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2 CRA NO.1103/1997 Beed, passed decree of divorce in favour of respondent – Ramkrishna in HMP No.11/1993 on 29.3.1994. 3) Mr.Kakde, learned Counsel for respondent submits, after the decree of divorce in favour of the respondent, he has married and now he is showered with four children. The delay occasioned in the matter if desired to be set up, would be bringing the respondent to streets including his children, who are otherwise begotten legitimately. 4) The learned District Judge, at the time of hearing the application for condonation of delay, was conscious of all the situations. He found that the documents produced on record by the wife are not sufficient to infer a reasonable or sufficient to cause for condonation of delay. The learned District Judge found the behaviour of wife Sindhubai was reckless in attending the matter, as she appeared, sought time to tender written statement and she was accommodated intermittently. However, despite of availing such opportunities, she failed to file her written statement on record, which has resulted in passing ex parte judgment of divorce against her. 5) Considering the reasons assigned by the learned District Judge and the passage of time in between, it would not be desirable to act upon the request of the petitioner/wife to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal before the learned District Judge. The order of the learned District 3 CRA NO.1103/1997 Judge dated 19.1.1997, refusing to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal, therefore, does not call for any interference. CRA lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/