24 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAO) NO.366 OF 2024 IN FAMILY COURT APPEAL ST NO.4944 OF 2024 MR. ROSHAN S/O VASANT BAWANKULE VS MISS. SHUBHANGI EXWIFE OF ROSHAN BAWANKULE ______________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Paliwal, Advocate for the applicant/appellant Mr. T.A. Mirza, Advocate for the respondent ------------------------------- CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 28 th MARCH, 2025 1. The present appeal is filed, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2023 passed by the Family Court, Bhandara, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent and further directing the appellant-husband to pay permanent alimony to the tune of Rs.20,000/- per month. 2. The present appeal is restricted to the order of permanent alimony, as the respondent-wife has performed a second marriage. 3. Since the delay has been caused in filing the appeal, the present application for condonation of delay is pressed by the appellant on the ground that after the judgment, some time was required to contact the counsel, as the appellant was working in Pune. Thereafter, his nd.thawre 2025:BHC-NAG:3214-DB 24 2 brother lost his job, and his entire family was under pressure at that time, and then the appellant suffered some ailment. He further submits that thereafter, he obtained certain information through the Right to Information Act, and while doing all these things, a reasonable period lapsed and delay has been caused. He therefore submits that the delay of 218 days is not an intentional delay but a bona fide one. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-wife vehemently opposes the application. He submits that the application is vague and no details are given for any of the reasons stated in the application. He therefore submits that in absence of necessary details and particulars, the explanation offered by the appellant cannot be accepted. 5. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent to some extent, but considering the fact that the reasons are given in the application explaining the delay, though not stated in detail. Hence, we are of the opinion that the delay needs to be condoned subject to payment of costs. 6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and disposed of. The delay of 218 days in filing the appeal, is condoned, subject to payment of Rs.21,000/- as costs to be nd.thawre 24 3 paid to the respondent, within four weeks from today. 7. The appeal be registered and placed on 21.04.2025. (PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.) nd.thawre