Appellant Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia's plea for delay condonation rejected; court upholds annulment of marriage due to a subsisting prior marriage.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia, citing a substantial delay of 654 days in filing the appeal, without a bona fide explanation. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench consisting of Justices Arindam Sinha and Satya Veer Singh.
The appeal pertained to a Family Court judgment dated August 18, 2023, which declared the marriage between Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia and Rahul Sisodia null and void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, due to Mehrolia's alleged prior subsisting marriage. The court observed that Mehrolia failed to provide a sufficient cause for the delay in challenging the verdict, despite having been aware of the proceedings.
In her application for condonation of delay, Mehrolia cited late discovery of the judgment and financial constraints as reasons for the delay. However, the court found these explanations inadequate and noted that the appellant had previously participated in the Family Court proceedings but did not file a written statement. The court emphasized the importance of providing a bona fide explanation for delays to avoid undermining the judicial process.
Counsel for Mehrolia, Saurabh Sachan, argued that there was a reunion between the parties, leading his client to believe that the legal issues had been resolved. Sachan also referenced several judgments to support the appeal, including those from the Calcutta High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which discussed the necessity of proving ceremonial aspects of prior marriages when a marriage is contested.
However, the court maintained that Mehrolia's notarized affidavit admitting to the prior marriage constituted evidence, and her failure to defend the suit despite notice of specific allegations was a critical factor in the dismissal of the appeal. The court relied on precedent from the Supreme Court case Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji, which advocates for a liberal approach in condoning delays but stresses the need for a bona fide explanation.
The court also referenced the Supreme Court's stance in Shivamma (dead) by LRs. v. Karnataka Housing Board, underscoring that merits of the main matter should not overshadow the assessment of the bona fides of the explanation provided for delay.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the appeal lacked a legitimate explanation for the delay and dismissed both the application for condonation of delay and the appeal itself.
Bottom Line:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Delay of 654 days - Application for condonation of delay dismissed as appellant failed to provide bona fide explanation for delay - Liberal approach considered, but insufficient cause shown.
Statutory provision(s): Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Sections 5, 11, 12, Evidence Act, 1872
Neha Jaykishore Mehrolia v. Rahul Sisodia, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2870707
