Bombay High Court
TRAMBAK NATHA BHAGWATversusSHWETA TRAMBAK BHAGWAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that the 155‑day delay was bona fide and therefore condoned.
Summary
The applicant, Trambak Natha Bhagwat, appealed a Family Court judgment that dismissed his petition for dissolution of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. The appeal, filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984, was delayed by 155 days. The applicant sought condonation of this delay, citing his father's serious illness and his own election duty assignment as reasons. The court examined the explanation and found it bona fide. Consequently, the court granted the interim application, condoning the delay and ordering the appeal to be listed for hearing on 13 February 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 155 days in filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 can be condoned.
Legislation cited
- Family Court Act, 1984 — s. 19
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — s. 12(1)(ia), 12(1)(ib)
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal filing
- Family Court Act
- Hindu Marriage Act
- dissolution of marriage
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.01.17
11:14:24
+0530
1/2 8 IA.2048.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2048 OF 2025
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 3824 OF 2025
Trambak Natha Bhagwat .. Applicant
Versus
Shweta Trambak Bhagwat .. Respondent
…
Mr. Vijaykumar Dighe a/w Mr. Parmeshwar Turerao, for the
Applicant.
…
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 13th JANUARY, 2026
P.C:-
1. The Appeal >led under Section 19 of the Family Court
Act, 1984 raises a challenge to the Judgment dated
18.06.2024, passed by the Family Court, Pune, in Petition No.
A-914 of 2016 seeking dissolution of marriage under Section
12(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
2. The petition is dismissed by the Family Court along with
the counterclaim >led by the respondent, and hence the
present Appeal is >led.
3. In >ling the Appeal there is a delay of 155 days, which is
sought to be condoned through the aforesaid Application.
We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and
R.V.Patil
2/2 8 IA.2048.2025.odt
perused the Application, which offered an explanation to the
delay that is caused.
Apart from the ground that the Applicant’s father was
seriously ill, the Application also proceed to state that he was
appointed on Election Duty by order dated 25.09.2024, and he
was assigned the duty at Kothrud Constituency Pune, and this
also added to the delay in >ling of the Appeal.
Though the notice was issued and appearance has not
been caused by the Respondent, today, none appear for the
Respondent.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the Applicant and
perusal of the Application and testing the bona >de thereof, we
>nd suf>cient cause to be shown for condoning the delay of 155
days in >ling the Appeal.
Interim Application No. 2048 of 2025 is made absolute in
terms of prayer clause (a).
The Family Court Appeal is directed to be listed for
hearing on 13.02.2026.
The learned counsel is at liberty to place documents on
record including the depositions.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
R.V.Patil
Checking your session…