Pankaj Kumar vs. Shashibala CMP(M) No. 1019 of 2025 22.11.2025 Present: Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the applicant- appellant. Mr. Praveen Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent. This application has been 昀椀led for condonation of delay of 121 days in 昀椀ling the appeal against judgment passed by the Family Court, Hamirpur dismissing the petition preferred by the applicant under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce. For 昀椀ling an appeal under Hindu Marriage Act, there is limitation of 90 days, wheres under the Family Court Act, limitation has been provided as 30 days. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned judgment was passed on 22.11.2024, the copy was attested on 10.12.2024 and was received on 11.12.2024. The applicant-appellan, on the basis of wrong advise, was under impression that 90 days limitation period was available from 11.12.2024 and, accordingly, appeal was preferred on 11.3.2025 considering it to be within limitation period but at the time of 昀椀ling, Registry had raised objection that appeal was barred by time and thereafter this application for condonation of delay was 昀椀led on 18.06.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that delay is neither intentional nor willful nor applicant is going to gain anything by delaying the adjudication of the matter as his own petition 昀椀led for dissolution of marriage has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made for condonation of delay on the ground that day to day delay, as required to be explained under law, has not been explained. Considering the aforesaid submissions we are of the considered opinion that a case is made out for condonation of delay and accordingly delay of 121 days in 昀椀ling the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed and disposed of. FAO No………...(FAO(FC)ST No. 8459 of 2025) Be registered. Respondent is duly represented. Admit. Record be requisitioned. At this stage, as prayed by learned counsel for the parties before 昀椀nal hearing, it would be appropriate to explore possibility of amicable settlement, if any, between the parties and, therefore, for this limited purpose petition is ordered to be listed on 09.12.2025 to enable the learned counsel for parties to have complete instructions. ( Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge November 22, 2025 (veena)