Bombay High Court
SOU.SEEMA NIRANJAN KARMALKAR @ SEEMA RAHUL SUTRAVEversusRAHUL DNYANESHWAR SUTRAVE
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the interim application was bona‑fide, condoned the delay, and restored the dismissed appeal.
Summary
The applicant filed an interim application seeking restoration of Family Court Appeal No. 35 of 2020, which had been dismissed because notice to Respondent No. 2 was not served and the appellant failed to act within the two‑week deadline. The Registrar had directed dismissal for non‑service, and the appeal was consequently struck down. The applicant pleaded bona‑fide reasons for the failure to serve and detailed the attempts made. The High Court, satisfied with the justification, condoned the 55‑day delay in filing the interim application, made the application absolute, and ordered the appeal to be restored and listed for hearing on 6 March 2026. The decision underscores the court’s discretion to condone delay and revive dismissed appeals where the applicant’s case is genuine.
Issues considered
- Can a Family Court appeal dismissed for failure to serve notice to a respondent be restored on an interim application?
- Whether a delay of 55 days in filing the interim application can be condoned under the court’s inherent powers?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to order the listing of the restored appeal?
Subjects
- Family Court appeal
- service of notice
- restoration of appeal
- condonation of delay
- interim application
Judgment
16-IA-13066-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13066 OF 2025
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2020
Sou. Seema Niranjan Karmalkar @ Seema Rahul ...Applicant
SNEHA Sutrave
NITIN Versus
CHAVAN
Rahul Dnyaneshwar Sutrave ...Respondent
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date: 2026.02.09
16:20:15 +0530
****
Ms. Seema Dighe i/b Priyal Sarda for the Applicant.
Mr. Dhananjay Bhosale for Respondent.
****
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :
1. The interim application seeks restoration of Family Court Appeal
No. 35 of 2020, which is dismissed for non removal of office objections,
after the objections were notified by the Registrar(Judicial-II) on
16.07.2025.
2. Heard the counsel for the applicant and perused the application.
It is noted that on 24.02.2023 notice was issued in the Family
Court Appeal and the notice of Respondent No. 2 remained unserved
and therefore, the appeal was placed before the Registrar for taking
steps for service of notice upon the unserved Respondent no. 2.
Since no steps were taken, for taking requisite steps for issuance
of fresh notice or for supplying postal stamps, by invoking the power
available, the Registrar noted that the matter is lying idle without any
Sneha Chavan 1
16-IA-13066-2025.doc
progress and no steps being taken.
The Appellant was therefore, directed to take steps within two
weeks without fail and in absence, the appeal was directed to be
dismissed against the unserved Respondent No.2 without further
reference to the Registry. It is in these circumstances, the appeal came to
be dismissed.
3. The application, has specifically set out the justification for the
service not being effected on Respondent No. 2 and the attempts made
to serve the Respondent No. 2.
Being satisfied with the bonafide of the application, Interim
Application No. 13066 of 2025 is made absolute. The delay of 55 days,
which had occurred in filing of the application, is condoned.
The Family Court Appeal is directed to be listed on 06.03.2026.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 2
Checking your session…