Manipur HC allowed a 62-day delay in a matrimonial appeal, prioritizing the merits of the family maintenance case over procedural timelines

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 336

May 5, 2026 : The High Court of Manipur has prioritized the merits of a matrimonial dispute over procedural delays, allowing an appeal to proceed despite being filed 62 days past the statutory deadline. The decision, handed down by a bench comprising Chief Justice Mr. M. Sundar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma, highlights the court’s tendency toward leniency in family matters where the circumstances of the parties demand a more flexible approach to judicial timelines.

The case, docketed as MC(Mat.App.) No. 9 of 2026, was initiated by Priyobrata Thounaojam against his wife, Lisham Bijaya Devi, and their two children . The applicant sought to challenge a December 2025 order from the Family Court of Thoubal related to a civil execution case involving monthly maintenance and educational expenses. Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, such appeals must be filed within a strict timeframe, but Thounaojam’s petition arrived two months late.

During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel, Ms. Sandhyarani Chanu, argued that the delay was “neither willful nor wanton”. She explained that the appellant had initially approached the wrong legal forum and subsequently faced difficulties “ferreting out” old documents required to prepare the appeal. These logistical hurdles, she contended, justified a “Condonation of Delay” to ensure the case could be heard on its merits.

The respondents’ counsel, Mr. Ajoy Pebam, opposed the application, arguing that the delay was entirely avoidable. He suggested that had the appellant and his legal team exercised greater diligence, the statutory deadline could have been met.

Ultimately, the High Court rejected the opposition’s push for strict adherence to the clock. The bench noted that in matrimonial disputes, the specific circumstances and personal situations of the parties involved must be taken into account. Ruling that the 62-day lapse did not warrant dismissing the case outright, the Court condoned the delay and directed the Registry to process and number the appeal for a formal hearing . The “Miscellaneous Case” was allowed without any order as to costs, clearing the path for the family’s maintenance dispute to be settled in court.

Case Reference : MC(Mat.App.) No. 9 of 2026, Priyobrata Thounaojam vs. Lisham (N) Thounaojam (O) Bijaya Devi and Others.