Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

BABITA @LAXMI SUNIL BHOIversusSUNIL DASHARATH BHOI

Disposal
Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The court condoned the 80‑day delay and ordered the appeal to be registered.

Summary

The wife, Babita @laxmi, filed a civil application seeking condonation of an 80‑day delay in filing a Family Court appeal against her husband, Sunil Dasharath Bhoi. The bailiff’s report indicated that the husband refused to accept the notice, which the court deemed to constitute service. No representative appeared for the husband. The court considered whether the statutory period for filing the appeal could be extended despite the delay. It held that the delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed. Consequently, the application was disposed and the appeal was to be registered after clearing any office objections.

Issues considered

  • Whether an 80‑day delay in filing a Family Court appeal can be condoned.
  • Whether service of notice is deemed effected when the respondent refuses to accept it.

Subjects

  • Family Law
  • Appeal
  • Condonation of Delay
  • Service of Notice
  • Civil Procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41903-DB

                                                        946 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17074 OF 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          946 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17074 OF 2022
                                    IN FCAST/30014/2022

                                 Babita @laxmi W/o. Sunil Bhoi
                                             Versus
                                     Sunil Dasharath Bhoi
                   __________________________________________________________
                     • Adv. Anita V. Veer h/f. Adv. Dhananjay A Naik, for
                        Applicant - Wife
                   __________________________________________________________

                                     CORAM     : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                     DATE      : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026

                   PER COURT :
                   1)             Learned advocate Ms. Veer, holding for Mr. Naik,
                   learned counsel for the Applicant - Wife, submits that the
                   report of the Bailiff clearly indicates that the Respondent -
                   Husband has refused to accept the notice.

                   2)             In view of the same, the notice is deemed to
                   have been served. However, none appeared on behalf of the
                   Respondent - Husband.

                   3)             For the reasons recorded in the application, the
                   delay of 80 days in filing the Family Court Appeal stands
                   condoned. The Application is accordingly disposed of.

                   4)             The appeal filed by the Applicant - Wife be
                   registered after removal of all the office objections.



                   (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)            (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                             JUDGE                            JUDGE


                   Komal Kamble                                                  Page| 1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.