Refusal to accept personally conveyed summons does not establish lack of notice or justify condonation of delay.

The applicant sought condonation of 300 days’ delay in filing a petition challenging the Family Court, Chamba’s order dated 8 August 2025, which directed him to pay his wife ₹4,000 per month as maintenance.

He claimed that he had not been validly served, was unaware of the proceedings, and was physically disabled following a paralytic attack.

The respondent relied on the process server’s report recording that the applicant was personally apprised of the summons on 11 December 2024 but refused to accept it because he could not attend court.

The applicant obtained a copy of the challenged order on 17 February 2026 and filed the petition on 20 July 2026.

Whether the applicant established sufficient grounds to condone the 300-day delay in filing the petition

Whether the applicant’s claim that he lacked notice of the Family Court proceedings was supported by the process server’s report

The judgment cites no statute or precedent. The Court applied the principle that a party who is personally apprised of court proceedings and consciously refuses to accept the summons cannot rely on that refusal to claim lack of notice.

A delay must also be supported by an adequate explanation; the Court treated the unexplained period after the applicant received the certified copy as material to the condonation application.

The Court rejected the applicant’s claim that he was unaware of the proceedings because the process server’s report stated that the applicant was personally told about the summons and refused to accept it, citing his inability to attend court.

The Court found no basis to disbelieve that report and held that the absence of an independent witness did not undermine it, particularly since no interest or relationship between the process server and the respondent had been shown.

Further, although the applicant received the order copy on 17 February 2026, he filed the petition only on 20 July 2026, leaving a period of approximately five months unexplained.

The Court therefore found the grounds insufficient to condone the delay.

The Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and, consequently, the petition.