Bombay High Court
SARITA RAJU AJWANIversusRAJU GOPAL AJWANI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The delay in filing the appeal is bona‑fide and is therefore condoned.
Summary
The applicant, Sarita Raju Ajwani, filed an interim application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a family court judgment dated 2 August 2025. The respondent argued that the delay was not merely four days but extended from the e‑filing date of 20 February 2026, amounting to several months. The court examined the timeline, noting that a certified copy of the judgment was obtained only on 8 October 2025 and subsequent procedural steps caused the appeal to be filed in February 2026. The court held that the delay was neither deliberate nor reckless, was bona‑fide, and that refusing condonation would cause irreparable loss to the applicant in the matrimonial matter. Consequently, the interim application for condonation of delay was made absolute, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of more than four days, extending to several months, in filing an appeal can be condoned under civil procedure law?
- Whether the delay is bona‑fide and not indicative of recklessness or willfulness?
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- appeal filing
- family court judgment
- e‑filing
- certified copy
- maternity matter
- civil procedure
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.01
CHITNIS 13:56:49 +0530 18-ia.3095.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3095 OF 2026
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5668 OF 2026
Sarita Raju Ajwani ...Applicant
Versus
Raju Gopal Ajwani ...Respondent
Ms. Kalpana R. Trivedi for the Applicant
Mr. Archit G. Manukar for the Respondent.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 28th AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. Interim Application No.3095 of 2026 seeks condonation
of delay of 4 days in filing the appeal, based on the presumption that
the delay is 4 days.
The counsel for the respondent, however, points out to us
that the delay is not merely of 4 days, as the website reflects that the
appeal was filed on 20th February 2026 (E-filing) and the delay will
have to be computed till the date the appeal is filed.
2. On hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and on
perusal of the application, it is revealed that the judgment was
N. S. Chitnis 1/3
18-ia.3095.2026.doc
delivered on 2nd August 2025. An application for a certified copy was
filed on 18th August 2025, which was made available on 8 th October
2025 and thereafter, steps were taken to file the appeal along with the
application for condonation of delay.
The applicant has stated that the delay, if not condoned
would cause grave and irreparable loss and the delay is bona fide and it
is specifically pleaded that the procedural delay shall not defeat the
right of the applicant, specifically in the matrimonial matter.
3. Though the counsel for the respondent has vehemently
opposed the application for condonation of delay, we must note that
the delay is definitely more than 4 days, as the appeal came to be filed
in February 2026. However, in our view, the delay is neither deliberate
nor willful, nor is it so long as to lead to an inference of recklessness or
carelessness on the part of the applicant. We have also noted that 2
months were consumed in obtaining the certified copy and thereafter
some steps were required to be taken for filing the appeal and it
appears that though the affirmation on the application is of January
N. S. Chitnis 2/3
18-ia.3095.2026.doc
2026, ultimately, the appeal along with the application appears to have
be filed in the month of February 2026.
4. Since, we are of the view that the delay is bona fide, we
deem it appropriate to condone the same.
Interim Application is made absolute in terms of its prayer
clause.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 3/3
Checking your session…