1 2025:CGHC:47389-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA(MAT) No. 142 of 2023 • Ku. Jaishree Daughter Of Goverdhan Sonwani, Aged About 20 Years R/o. Village Chicha, Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus • Goverdhan Sonwani Son Of Sukhram Sonwani, Aged About 67 Years R/o. Village - Kathiya, Post - Kathiya No. 2, Tahsil - Abhanpur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. Division Bench Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Order on Board Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 16/09/2025 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Court Act, 1984 arising out of judgment dated 9.3.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, District-Durg, C.G. whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC has been dismissed only the ground of limitation without considering on merits and the civil suit was dismissed on default. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, applicant/appellant filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court under Sections 20(3), (6), (9), and (11) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, stating that she is the daughter of the respondent, born from the lawful wedlock of the appellant's mother and the respondent. The marriage between the mother and the respondent was solemnized according to the customs of their community on 04- 09-2000. The appellant is currently studying in the first year of B.Sc. After the marriage, the respondent subjected the mother to cruelty, which compelled her to reside in her paternal home. Consequently, the mother filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, registered as Criminal Case No. 260/2007, where interim maintenance was granted in 2013, and the appellant and her mother received Rs. 3,000/- per month from the respondent. When the appellant attained majority in April 2019, the interim maintenance ceased, prompting the appellant to file an application under Sections 20(3) (6) (9) and 3 (11) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month along with Rs. 8 lakhs for marriage purposes, and surety. The suit, titled Ku. Jai Shri vs. Goverdhan Sonwani, remained pending with the appellant appearing regularly alongside her counsel. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the appellant could not appear for her examination in February 2022, resulting in the trial court dismissing the suit for default on 25-02-2022. The appellant was unaware of this dismissal until she received the certified copy on 08-04-2022. Upon contacting her counsel, who was then out of town for religious purposes, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC for restoration of the case and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Both applications were dismissed on 09-03-2023 solely on the ground of limitation, without consideration of their merits, leading to the dismissal of the civil suit. Hence, this appeal has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant respectfully submits that the impugned order dated 09-03-2023 passed by the learned Court below is fundamentally flawed both in law and on facts, rendering the said order unsustainable and liable to be set aside. It is contended that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not extinguish the substantive rights or liabilities of the parties but serve merely to prevent abuse of the legal process by prescribing 4 a reasonable time frame for initiating proceedings. The law of limitation is not to be construed as a rigid or military rule that bars parties outright from seeking justice, rather, it emphasizes the necessity of approaching the court in a proper and timely manner. In the present case, the appellant, being the unmarried daughter of the respondent, filed an application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which was dismissed for want of prosecution without an adjudication on merits. Furthermore, the restoration application was rejected solely on the ground of limitation, a decision which is both harsh and unwarranted and thus liable to be quashed. It is respectfully submitted that the delay on the part of the appellant, who is an unemployed and unmarried young woman, was bona fide and caused by extraordinary circumstances, including the unprecedented disruptions due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing examination commitments, all of which impeded her ability to appear before the trial court. Despite these genuine reasons, the learned court dismissed the application solely on procedural grounds without affording an opportunity to consider the substantive merits of the case. The appellant’s dire need for maintenance to support herself and secure a better future cannot be overlooked, and the impugned order, if allowed to stand, would render her remediless and defeat the very purpose of 5 justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed, and the appellant reserves the right to urge any additional grounds that may arise at the time of hearing. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the same. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. An application under Sections 20(3) (6) (9) (11) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 was filed on February 3, 2020, in which the appellant was regularly appearing and prosecuting the case, however, on February 25, 2022, the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the appellant’s non- appearance. Upon becoming aware of the dismissal, the appellant promptly filed an application for restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure on May 7, 2022, along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, explaining that her absence was due to her final examinations scheduled during February and March 2022. The appellant’s reasons for non-appearance are bona fide and unavoidable, and she acted diligently in moving for restoration as soon as the dismissal order came to her knowledge. 7. From the order sheet, it is evident that the proceedings of the trial court during the specified period were significantly disrupted due 6 to the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This public health crisis led to multiple adjournments and delays, as the court was compelled to postpone hearings on several occasions, each time citing different reasons largely attributable to the ongoing restrictions and safety concerns. Consequently, the case was repeatedly scheduled and rescheduled, reflecting the broader impact of the pandemic on the judicial process and highlighting the difficulties faced in maintaining the regular flow of court proceedings during such an extraordinary time. 8. Finally, by the order dated February 25, 2022, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the appellant failed to appear on multiple prior occasions, specifically on February 7, February 23, and February 24 of the same year. Due to the appellant’s repeated absence and lack of engagement in the proceedings, the case was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution. 9. Against the dismissal of the suit, an application for restoration was filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), however, this application was subsequently dismissed on the grounds that the reasons provided were not bona fide, and the delay in filing the application was inadequately explained. Upon careful examination of the records, this Court notes that the original suit pertained to a claim for maintenance under the 7 Maintenance Act of 1956, filed by the appellant, the wife, seeking financial support for herself and her two school-going children. It is important to consider the context during which the application was made—specifically, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which had severely impacted the lives of many individuals. The appellant’s stated reasons for delay appear reasonable, particularly as she explained that during the critical period of February to March 2022, she was occupied with her examinations and was thus unable to appear or pursue the matter timely. Taking these factors into account, the Court finds that the appellant’s explanation holds merit and deserves due consideration rather than outright dismissal. 10. In matters pertaining to maintenance arising from family disputes, the Court must refrain from adopting an overly technical or rigid approach that could hinder the fair and just resolution of the case. Instead, the Court should prioritize substantive justice by ensuring that procedural obstacles do not prevent a thorough examination of the merits of the maintenance application. To achieve this, it is imperative that the Court issue an order for restoration, thereby enabling the parties involved to have their claims and defenses fully considered. Such a balanced and equitable approach not only upholds the spirit of justice but also safeguards the rights and welfare of the individuals concerned, 8 particularly in sensitive family matters where the consequences of denial or delay can be profound. 11. It is important to emphasize that although the application for maintenance has been formally filed by the appellant in this matter, the actual prosecution and handling of the case have been undertaken by ‘Nyay Mitra,’ a practicing Advocate. Given this circumstance, it is unreasonable to expect that a simple, homely lady—lacking legal training or familiarity with the complexities of judicial procedures—would possess the requisite knowledge or understanding of the intricate technicalities involved in such legal proceedings. 12. In order to consider an application for restoration of maintenance case filed by the daughter of respondent a pragmatic approach is required to be taken in the matter was dismissed due to want of prosecution the daughter has moved an application under order 9 rule 9 of CPC while giving reasons that in the month of February and March when the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution exams were going on an as such she could not appear in 2-3 occasion and it could also not be informed to the nyayamitra (curiae) after receipt of examination on 1/4/22 she has moved an application for getting certified copy of order which was recieved by this legal friend 8/4/22 however at that point of time the concerned nyayamitr(curiae) was out of station as he 9 was attending family puja at kamakya devi, guhati aasam due to Bonafide reason she was absent and further the application could not filed within time. It is well settled law that while deciding application under order 9 rule 9 CPC a liberal approach is required to be taken unless and until it is shown that the application is filled with delay without an Bonafide reasons it can be rejected. 13. In the present matter sufficient cause have been assigned as such the court should adopt justice oriented approach. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in AIR 1998 SC 3222, have held that the Courts are free to consider the cause shown for delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. Their lordships have held as under: "9. It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter. acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes, delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain cases, 10 the delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once, the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter. when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the case shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower Court. 14. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Rathore v Omkar Singh reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 505. have held that Court should adopt justice oriented approach while deciding application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. Their lordships have held as under:- “4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ought to have recalled the order of dismissal of claim petition dated 27-1-1998 and restored the petition to its original status, 11 condoning the delay in moving the application for restoration. The application was supported by medical certificate showing the applicant having fallen ill on the date of hearing. The applicant's own statement on oath remained uncontroverted. In such matters a justice oriented approach, and not a too technical or pedantic approach is expected to be adopted by Courts more so when the application sought to be restored for hearing was a claim case arising out of a motor accident. Refusal on the part of Tribunal to restore the claim petition, as also on the part of High Court to show indulgence to the appellant has occasioned failure of justice. The Tribunal could have put the parties to terms to meet the ends of justice but should not have refused to restore the claim petition. We, accordingly, allow these appeal sand set aside the impugned orders of the High Court as also of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 27-1-1998. The claim petition is restored to its original number and remanded to the Tribunal for its trial on merits. The proceedings hereafter shall commence from the stage at which the same were on 27th 12 January, 1998 when the claim petition was dismissed in default of appearance. The Tribunal shall expeditiously dispose of the petition.” 15. In the present case, the reason for absence is due to examination, The restoration petition was filed immediately along with the evidence affidavit and that itself shows the readiness of the plaintiff to commence the trial. This court is of the view that the learned trial judge had adopted a technical, narrow, and pedantic view on simple ground that the reason is not supported. It seems that due to examination which incapacitate the party from appearing on a given day, particularly when bonafide of the party is exercised in due time to rectify his absence. In view of the aforementioned premises, order impugned brooks interference of this court for it's hyper technical approach and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 16. Considering the foregoing aspects of the matter, and further taking into account the reasons articulated in the application, it is imperative that the concerned Court should have applied a sound and principled legal approach in deciding to restore the case. However, upon careful examination, it appears that such a legal approach was not duly adopted by the Court, thereby undermining the proper administration of justice in this instance. 17. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the matter 13 requires a fresh and careful reconsideration, accordingly, the order dated 9th March 2023 passed by the Court below is set aside, and the case is directed to be restored in its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 10.11.2025, and the trial Court is further instructed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, ensuring that appropriate and reasoned orders are passed within a stipulated period to facilitate the timely and just resolution of the case. 18. Accordingly, the FA(MAT) is hereby allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Raghu Jat