- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties on the petition filed under Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1281 days.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the Appellant No. 1 herself was the applicant in the petition filed before the Family Court, Dhanbad and she obtained a favourable order from the Family Court on 21.09.2006. The Appellants preferred this appeal before this Court on 03.05.2010 and Appellants' grounds for condoning the delay, as stated by the learned Counsel for the Appellants, is that the Appellant No. 1 since was not knowing full facts with respect to the income of her husband, therefore, after passing of the order by the Family Court, she tried to collect the relevant information from the department and also by invoking the provisions under the Right to Information Act and thereafter Appellants preferred this appeal. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the husband also has challenged the impugned order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance to the Appellant and that the appeal is admitted by this Court and is pending herein. Since the Appellant No. 1 had full knowledge of the order passed in her favour and it is from the date of the order and therefore, limitation started from the date of the order and it is not the case of the Appellants as it could not have been in the facts of this case that she had no knowledge of the impugned order. The reason given by the Appellant No. 1 that she started collecting evidence after passing of the order by the Family Court for getting more amount of maintenance, cannot be said to be a sufficient ground for such a long delay in filing the appeal, as she was aggrieved with the impugned order. Not only this, we are satisfied that the ground given by the Appellants for condoning the delay is not sufficient ground because of the length of the period consumed by the Appellant No.1, which according to her, she consumed in obtaining some new material and evidence in a decided case for preferring the appeal. The period of more than 1000 days cannot be said to be a reasonable period even for obtaining any information from anywhere in any view.
(3.) IN view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in the application (I.A. No. 1856 of 2010) filed under the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Hence, the application (I.A. No. 1856 of 2010) for condonation of delay in filing this appeal is dismissed and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.;