Limitation Period Of 30 Days To File Appeal Under Family Courts Act Can Cause Prejudice To Litigants: Gauhati HC

The Gauhati High Court has held that since Family Courts are not available in every district of the State, the limitation period of 30 days to file appeal under Family Courts Act can cause prejudice to the litigants living far fetched.

The Court was considering an Interlocutory Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and order of Family Court.

The division-bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Kakheto Sema observed, "So far as the State of Assam is concerned, 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 F.C. Act. On the other hand, in the districts where Family Court is not available, the Court of the District Judge adjudicates matrimonial disputes under the H.M. Act. The litigants, as such, are not left with any option to choose the forum and it depends as to where the cause of action would arise. That being the position, it would be prejudicial to a litigant in the aspect of preferring an appeal from a judgment passed by the Family Court vis-à-vis a litigant preferring an appeal from a judgment passed by a District Judge on the point of limitation. Therefore, in the context of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Pandey (supra), wherein the aspect of the litigants coming from far flung districts to the High Court to prefer an appeal has been taken into consideration, it is desirable that a uniform period of limitation be prescribed."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate P. Chakraborty while the Respondent was represented by Advocate P. Talukdar.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the delay in the instant case is only 21 days and the reasons for the same have been adequately pleaded in the application. It was submitted that the instant appeal was preferred qua a judgment passed by the Family Court in a suit filed by the applicant for annulment of the marriage. It was submitted that though the impugned judgment was passed on 14 June, 2024 and the certified copy was applied for on 15 June, 2025 due to the fact that the applicant is ordinarily residing in the State of Meghalaya, he could not come to collect the certified copy prior to 18 July, 2025. She submitted that in matters pertaining to the Family Court, the parties are required to present in person for collecting certified copies. She also clarified that the pleadings in paragraph 14 of the application are not properly worded and the actual meaning is that the certified copy could be collected on 18 July, 2025.

Relying on Supreme Court's decision in Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India and Ors., the Applicant submitted that there is a distinction of cases where the delay is not inordinate and cases where the delay is of few days and accordingly, the approach of the Court should be slightly different. She accordingly submitted that the delay be condoned and the application be allowed.

Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the application suffers from suppression of material facts and that while the certified copy was applied on 15 June, 2025 and the same date was notified for requisite stamps and folios, the same was deposited only on 18 July 2025 and thereby the negligence of the applicant becomes apparent. She submitted that the judgment being of 12 June, 2025 it was from that date from which limitation would start. She submitted that in paragraph 14 of the application, misleading statements have been made. It was her submission that the delay is required to be explained not from the date of expiry of limitation but from the date when the limitation starts.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that it is a settled position of law that a pragmatic and justice oriented approach is required in adjudication of such an application for condonation of delay and cited Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji.

"In the instant case, the delay is of 21 days which, in the comprehension of this Court cannot be termed to be an inordinate one. So far as the reasons cited to explain the said delay, it appears that there is some inconsistencies in the pleadings of the application regarding the date when the certified copy of the impugned judgment was made available," the Court observed.

The Court was of the view that since Family Courts are not available in all the districts in Assam, not granting further time to litigant will be prejudicial to him.

"In view of the aforesaid conspectus and also by referring to the views expressed by the Full Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court as mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the delay of 21 days which has been calculated by counting the same with a period of limitation as 30 days may not even come into the way of preferring the appeal in the form of “barred by limitation”. In any case, we are of the view that the delay, not being inordinate and there is an explanation provided which is acceptable, the same is required to be condoned which we accordingly do," the Court observed.

The Application was accordingly dismissed.

Case No.- Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2463/2024

Appearances:

Applicant- Advocate P. Chakraborty, Advocate A Das

Respondent- Advocate P. Talukdar

Click here to read/ download Order