Source: Gauhati High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema held that merely because the order is passed by a District Court, a larger period of limitation i.e. 90 days and merely because the order is passed by the Family Court, a lesser period of limitation of 30 days would be unreasonable and will not stand the test of equality. 

• The Gauhati High Court held this in the case of X v. Y (2025).

What was the Background of X v. Y Case?   

• The applicant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (LA) seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the judgment dated 12th June 2024 and order dated 14th June 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court -2, Kamrup (Metro). 
• The Applicant moved forward the following arguments: 
  • The delay was only 21 days and adequately explained in paragraphs 13, 14, and 15 of the application. 
  • The appeal pertains to a judgment in a case for annulment of marriage. 
  • Though the judgment was passed on 14th June 2024, the certified copy was applied for on 15th June 2024. 
  • The applicant, residing in Meghalaya, could not collect the certified copy until 18th July 2024, as personal presence is required in Family Court matters. 
  • The learned counsel relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Sridevi Datla v. Union of India (2021), which suggests a lenient approach for minor delays. 
• The arguments forwarded by the Respondent were as follows: 
  • The applicant suppressed material facts. 
  • The certified copy was applied for on 15th June 2024, but the required stamps and folios were only deposited on 18th July 2024, showing negligence. 
  • The limitation period starts from 12th June 2024, the date of the judgment, not from the expiry of the limitation period. 
  • Misleading statements were made in paragraph 14 of the application. 
• Thus, the question before the Court was whether the delay should be condoned or not in the present facts. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court laid down the following guidelines are to be considered while determining if the delay should be considered: 
  • The power vested upon a Court to exercise such jurisdiction is essentially a discretionary one. The natural corollary is that there has to be an application of a judicious mind by taking into consideration all the relevant factors. 
  • The relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration would include the conduct of the party as discretion can be exercised only by balancing the equities. 
  • The length / duration of delay and the explanation put forward are both relevant considerations for exercise of such discretion. 
  • The Court would generally proceed with a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach with such petition as substantial justice should not be allowed to be defeated by mere technicalities. 
  • At the same time, the Court would also not lose sight of the fact that a valuable right has accrued on the other party and such right should not be interfered with lightly. Therefore, though there may not be a requirement to seek a day-to-day explanation, the explanation for the delay should be a reasonable one which is acceptable to a man of ordinary prudence 
• The Court concluded that in the present facts the delay of 21 days cannot be termed as inordinate.  
• Further, there was another aspect that the Court considered which is the period of limitation for filing an appeal in case application is filed under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). 
  • While Section 28 of HMA provides a period of limitation for filing appeals is 30 days whereas Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (FCA) provides that period of limitation for filing appeal is 90 days. 
• The Court observed that Family Courts are not available in all the districts and it is only in those districts where Family Courts are available that matrimonial disputes are adjudicated under the FCA. 
• Where the Family Court is not available the Court of District Judge will adjudicate matrimonial disputes under HMA. 
• The Court observed that in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI) an identical period of limitation is required to be made applicable against all orders appealable under Section 28 of HMA vis-a-vis an order appealable under Section 19 of FCA. 
• The Court held that merely because the order is passed by a District Court, a larger period of limitation i.e. 90 days and merely because the order is passed by the Family Court, a lesser period of limitation of 30 days would be unreasonable and will not stand the test of equality.

How did the Limitation Period for Filing Appeal Against Decree Passed Under HMA Evolve? 

• Before the enactment of the FCA an appeal against a decree passed by the District Judge under the HMA would have to be filed under Section 28 of HMA. 
• The period of limitation prescribed for such an appeal is 30 days. 
• In the case of Savitry Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002), the Court held that: 
  • The limitation period to file an appeal (30 days) considering the distance, geographical conditions and financial conditions is insufficient. 
  • The Court was of the opinion that a minimum period of 90 days may be prescribed for filing the appeal. 
• Pursuant to the above judgment, Section 28 (4) of HMA was amended in the year 2003 and the period of limitation was extended from 30 to 90 days. 
• However, as per Section 19 (3) of FCA the period of limitation for filing an appeal has been prescribed as 30 days. Due to the amendment discussed above there is an inconsistency on this aspect.