RATNABEN W/O DIPAKKUMAR PITRODA D/O ARUNBHI VRAJLAL CHUDASAMAversusDIPAKKUMAR KANTILAL PITRODA

        C/CA/5895/2025                             ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

     R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 5895 of
                                 2025
                                  In
                       F/FIRST APPEAL/36399/2025

==========================================================
      RATNABEN W/O DIPAKKUMAR PITRODA D/O ARUNBHI VRAJLAL
                       CHUDASAMA & ANR.
                            Versus
                 DIPAKKUMAR KANTILAL PITRODA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JOHNSEY P MACWAN(5498) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR YN RAVANI(718) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                               Date : 09/06/2026

                              ORAL ORDER
               (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)


1.     This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has
       been filed on behalf of the appellant, seeking condonation of delay
       of 105 days in filing the present appeal.


2.     We have heard learned counsel Mr. J. P. Macwan and Mr. Y. N.
       Ravani, for the respective parties.


3.     Brief facts giving rise to file present application are that, the
       opponent husband had filed a Family Suit No. 228 of 2018 in the
       Family Court at Nadiad for divorce from the applicants herein on the
       ground that she has been living adulterous life. Vide judgment and
       decree dated 13.05.2025, the Family Court dissolved the marriage.



                                    Page 1 of 6
     C/CA/5895/2025                                 ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




4.   In the aforesaid facts, after delay of 105 days, the appeal has been
     presented before this Court. It is averred in the application that,
     delay has occasioned on account of acute financial crunch and it is
     only after arranging of necessary amount to be paid towards
     professional fees, the applicant has been able to file the aforesaid
     Appeal.


5.   Mr. Macwan, learned advocate reiterating the averments made in the
     application, has submitted that, the applicant wife has no means for
     her livelihood and due to financial crunch, she could not arrange a
     necessary professional fees and after the arrangement, she would
     able to file an Appeal and on that ground, the delay has occasioned.
     In such circumstances, it is submitted that, the sufficient cause may
     be liberally construed to do substantial justice.


6.   On the other hand, opposing the application, Mr. Y.N. Ravani,
     learned counsel reiterating the contentions of the affidavit-in-reply,
     has submitted that the reasons set forth for the delay are totally
     insufficient to condone the delay and the explanation is not
     satisfactory. He would further urge that, the decree came to be
     passed on 13.05.2025. The applicant moved an application dated
     22.09.2025 addressed to Vadodara Police for domestic violence etc,
     thereafter on 27.11.2025, she filed a Recovery Application of
     interim maintenance and then, on 03.12.2025, she has presented the
     appeal along with delay condonation application. Thus, it shows that
     the applicant had spent amount towards the legal proceedings, which
     proves that, the plea of financial crunch is fabricated excuse and
     therefore, the delay has caused is not due to lack of means but

                                  Page 2 of 6
     C/CA/5895/2025                                     ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




     deliberate and negligent act on the part of the applicant. Thus,
     considering the conduct, behaviour and attitude of the applicant,
     who is admittedly living adulterous life with the applicant no. 2, no
     sufficient ground made out for condoning the delay.


7.   We have considered the submissions and averments made in the
     application as well as the affidavit in reply.


8.    The Apex Court has observed as under:

      “8. It is well settled that the discretion to condone delay has to be
      exercised judiciously, based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
      It is also equally well settled that even though limitation may harshly
      affect the rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour
      as prescribed under the statute, as the Courts have no choice but to
      apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay
      on equitable grounds.

      9. In a case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by L.Rs. and others Vs.
      Special Deputy Collector (L.A.), 2024 SCC Online SC 513wherein the
      Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

              "26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law,
              as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident
              that:

              (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should
              be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather
              than the right itself;

              (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed
              of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a
              fixed period of time;

              (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed
              differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense
              whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

              (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal
              approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial
              justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to


                                    Page 3 of 6
C/CA/5895/2025                                    ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




         defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of
         the Limitation Act;

         (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the
         delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of
         power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if
         sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where
         there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

         (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does
         not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the
         court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing
         the appeal;

         (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in
         condoning the delay; and

         (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the
         parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning
         the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed,
         tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision."

 10. In a case of Basawaraj Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, the
 Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

         "12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may
         harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all
         its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power
         to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result
         flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has
         no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a
         distress resulting from its operation."

         The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a
         particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it
         giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex
         which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted
         in such a situation. It has consistently been held that,
         "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while
         interpreting a statute"

         25. In the aforesaid case law, the Hon'ble Apex Court further
         held as follows:-

         "15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that
         where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation,
         the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the



                               Page 4 of 6
     C/CA/5895/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




              "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason
              which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In
              case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on
              his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to
              have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
              justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified
              in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition
              whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the
              parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation
              of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a
              litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay
              without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever,
              amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory
              provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the
              legislature."


9.   Considering the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case law and having
     regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it
     is an admitted facts that the applicant wife is belonged to lower
     strata of the society and nothing on record to show that she is
     financially sound. The applicant no. 2, against whom the allegation
     being made, has been joined because before the Family Court, he
     was joined as an opponent. The opponent husband failed to
     demonstrate that the applicant no. 2 having sufficient means and he
     is able to bare the legal expenses. In such circumstances, merely
     filing complaints and perusing the recovery proceedings, cannot be a
     ground to presume that the applicant no. 1 having sufficient means.
     Thus, therefore, in our opinion, in such circumstances, avoiding
     technical approach and construing liberally, the term “sufficient
     cause” to do substantial justice, we are of the considered opinion
     that, the delay was not occasioned deliberately or on account of
     negligence or malafides.




                                   Page 5 of 6
            C/CA/5895/2025                                                            ORDER DATED: 09/06/2026




   10. For the reasons recorded, we are satisfied with the reasons stated in
           the application. The applicants have established sufficient cause and
           therefore, delay in preferring the first appeal deserves to be
           condoned and is hereby condoned. Rule is made absolute.



                                                                                               (ILESH J. VORA,J)




                                                                                            (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
   P.S. JOSHI

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/06/2026 13:40:17




                                                          Page 6 of 6