1 62-WP-537-15.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 537 OF 2015 MADHURI RAMAKANT DESALE VERSUS RAMAKANT PANDLIK DESALE ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Amol S. Sawant Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Mukul S. Kulkarni ... CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 02-09-2026 PER COURT:- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 27.11.2014 below Exhibit-1 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 77 of 2009. By the order under challenge, the learned appellate court rejected the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with a cost. 2. The matrimonial dispute between the parties started from a Hindu Marriage Petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the respondent, which was allowed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the judgment and order/decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal. Since there was a delay of 90 days in filing the appeal, the petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay. The appellate court inclined to condone the delay, subject to cost of Rs.500/- payable to the respondent. However, due to 2026:BHC-AUG:41466 2 62-WP-537-15.odt inadvertence, the petitioner failed to deposit the cost within the stipulated period, leading to the rejection of the application and the statutory appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the failure to deposit the cost was neither deliberate nor intentional. He argued that the appellate court adopted a hyper-technical approach. It is also submitted that substantial justice must prevail over technical defaults and that an opportunity must be granted to contest the matter on merits. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the petition. He contended that the petitioner failed to offer a satisfactory explanation for the initial 90-day delay. He further argued that despite the appellate court exercised jurisdiction condoning the delay subject to nominal costs, the petitioner willfully failed to deposit the amount, thereby forfeiting any entitlement to equitable relief. 5. Having heard both sides and perused the record, it is evident that the petitioner’s appeal against the matrimonial decree has been dismissed purely on a technical default rather than an adjudication on the merits. In matrimonial disputes, the courts should ideally lean towards a substantive adjudication to settle the marital status and rights of the parties conclusively. 3 62-WP-537-15.odt 6. While the petitioner’s negligence in depositing the nominal cost of Rs.500/- cannot be completely overlooked, depriving a party of an appellate remedy on a minor financial default defeats the ends of justice. To subserve the cause of substantial justice, an opportunity needs to be extended to the petitioner to have the appeal heard on its merits, subject to reasonable terms. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed with the following directions: (I) The order dated 27.11.2014 below Exhibit-1 in M.C.A. No. 77 of 2009 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The delay of 90 days in filing the appeal stands condoned, subject to the petitioner depositing the original cost amount of Rs.500/- (if not already deposited) within a period of three weeks from today. (iii) The parties are directed to appear before the concerned appellate court on 29.09.2026. (v) The appellate court is requested to make an endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously. 8. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.] rrd