SHRI KHALID AHMED DESAI Vs. SMT. SANA RAZVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 9/6/2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Margao in Matrimonial petition No.72/2015/II. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has refused to condone the delay in filing the written statement by the petitioner.

(3.) The brief facts are that; the respondent has filed the aforesaid matrimonial petition against the petitioner for dissolution of marriage. Indisputably, the petitioner is residing in U.S.A. It is further undisputed that the summons in the matrimonial petition was served on the aged parents of the petitioner some time at the end of August 2015. It appears that on 13/10/2015, Advocate Mr. Fernandes put appearance on behalf of the petitioner in the matrimonial petition. It further appears that a written statement was prepared and sworn before the Notary at Panaji on 8/7/2016. According to the petitioner, when the written statement was sought to be filed on 1/9/2016, the same was returned on account of the fact that it was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 14/9/2016 on which date, none appeared for the petitioner (the respondent before the trial court). It appears from the perusal of the roznama dated 14/9/2016 that a last and final opportunity was given to the petitioner to file the written statement and the matter was adjourned to 3/10/2016. On that date, the petitioner filed application for condonation of delay (Exhibit D-7). The matter was adjourned to 18/10/2016 for say of the respondent. On that date, the matter was adjournment to 22/11/2016, as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 22/11/2016, the respondent filed his reply (Exhibit D-10) to the application for condonation of delay and the matter was adjourned for arguments on 30/11/2016. The record discloses that the written statement along with a memo was filed on record on 30/11/2016. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for conciliation, which did not materialize. Finally the learned trial court by the impugned order has rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.