Condonation of Sixty-Two Days Delay Granted in Matrimonial Appeal For Bona Fide Pursuit of Improper Forum

The Applicant/Appellant filed a statutory appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging an order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Family Court, Thoubal, in Civil Execution Case No. 3 of 2024.

The execution case pertained to a 2019 judgment regarding monthly maintenance and educational expenses.

The appeal was filed with a delay of 62 days. The Applicant sought condonation of this delay, citing the initial pursuit of a remedy in the wrong forum and the time-consuming process of ferreting out old documents required for the appeal.

The Respondents opposed the application, arguing that the Applicant lacked the necessary diligence to avoid the delay.

1. Whether there was "sufficient cause" to condone the 62-day delay in filing the matrimonial statutory appeal under the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Court considered the statutory right of appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

It applied the general principle of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay, emphasizing a liberal and pragmatic approach in matrimonial disputes.

The Court balanced the requirement of "diligence" against the specific circumstances of the parties and the nature of the litigation to ensure that substantive justice is not defeated by technicalities.

The Court evaluated the Applicant's explanation—specifically the mistaken choice of forum and the necessity of retrieving archived documents—against the Respondents' claim of negligence.

The Court noted that in matrimonial matters, the circumstances of the individuals involved are paramount.

While the Respondents argued that the delay was avoidable through better diligence, the Court found that such an argument "does not cut ice" given the relatively short duration of the delay (62 days) and the specific hardships cited by the Applicant.

The Court reasoned that the interest of justice in a matrimonial context outweighed the requirement for strict procedural adherence, especially when the delay was neither willful nor wanton.

The Court held that the 62-day delay was liable to be condoned given the matrimonial nature of the suit and the circumstances of the appellant.

The Registry was directed to process and number the appeal, provided all other objections were removed, and list it for hearing.

No order was made as to costs.