Isabella Mariam

The Gauhati High Court recently dealt with an Interlocutory Application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against a judgment passed by the Family Court. The Court highlighted an important issue regarding the 30-day limitation period prescribed under the Family Courts Act for filing appeals, especially when Family Courts are not present in every district of the state. This limitation could potentially cause prejudice to litigants, particularly those residing in distant or remote areas.

The division bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema, noted that Family Courts are not available in all districts of Assam. In districts where they are absent, matrimonial disputes are adjudicated by the District Court under the Hindu Marriage Act (H.M. Act). The bench pointed out that the location of the Family Court or District Court significantly affects the limitation period for filing appeals. This creates a disparity for litigants depending on where their case was heard, as they might face different timelines for filing an appeal.

In their observations, the judges referred to a previous Supreme Court ruling in Savitri Pandey, where the Court had acknowledged the difficulties faced by litigants from remote districts when they have to travel long distances to file appeals. The bench argued that such factors should be taken into account, and ideally, a uniform limitation period should be prescribed, regardless of where the case is adjudicated.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the applicant, represented by Advocate P. Chakraborty, sought to appeal a judgment passed by the Family Court concerning the annulment of their marriage. The applicant, who resides in Meghalaya, explained that although the judgment was delivered on June 14, 2024, and the certified copy was applied for on June 15, 2025, the applicant could not collect the certified copy before July 18, 2025. The delay in collecting the certified copy was attributed to the applicant's residence in another state, as the Family Court requires parties to be physically present to collect such documents.

The applicant’s counsel argued that the delay of 21 days was not unreasonable and should be condoned. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India, where the Court had recognized the difference between small delays and significant ones, advocating for a more lenient approach in cases of brief delays.

On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Advocate P. Talukdar, argued that the application failed to disclose crucial facts. The respondent pointed out that while the certified copy was applied for on June 15, 2025, the applicant had not deposited the required stamps and folios until July 18, 2025. This delay, the respondent claimed, indicated negligence on the applicant’s part, and the limitation period should be calculated from the judgment date, June 12, 2025, rather than the date the certified copy was collected.

The Court began by emphasizing the need for a pragmatic and just approach in such cases, citing the  landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, in which it had laid down that there is no strict requirement of explaining each day's delay. The Court noted that a 21-day delay could not be considered excessive, and although there were some inconsistencies in the applicant’s pleadings regarding the date the certified copy was made available, the overall explanation for the delay appeared reasonable.

The bench also acknowledged that Family Courts are not universally available in Assam, which could further complicate the filing of appeals for litigants from far-flung districts. The judges ruled that not granting an extension of time would be prejudicial to the litigant, especially in a scenario where logistical challenges related to obtaining documents and traveling were present.

The Court noted that the aforesaid issue had also arisen before a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shivram Dodanna Shetty Vs. Sharmila Shivram Shetty reported in 2017(1) Mh.LJ (Judgment dated 01.12.2016). The Court further took note of the decision of  a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Chaudhary Chetnaben Dilipbhai vs. Chaduhary Dilipbhai Lavjibhai (judgment dated 17.01.2023) reported in 2023(1) Civil Court Cases 562 has reiterated that the time limit for filing an appeal challenging a judgment or order of Family Court arising out of a matrimonial dispute is 90 days.

In conclusion, the Court observed that the delay of 21 days, given the circumstances and the reasonable explanation provided, should not be seen as a bar to the appeal. The Court, therefore, condoned the delay and allowed the application. Consequently, the delay was condoned and the application allowed. The Court directed the appeal to be registered and be listed for admission.

Case Title : Refill Star Pakyntein Vs. Jaya ArorA

Case No. I.A. (Civil) No. 2463/2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and  Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kakheto Sema

[read/Download order]