MONISHA BAHADUR CHETNA RUSTAGI vs BASUDEB BAHADUR — FAT/68/2026
Case under Special Marriage Act ,1954 Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED on 19th May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0094062026
Next Hearing
09th March 2026
Filing Number
FAT/69/2026
Filing Date
24-02-2026
Registration No
FAT/68/2026
Registration Date
25-02-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP B (CIVIL MATTERS) ( 2 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 6 )
Judicial Branch
STAMP REPORTER (SR) SECTION
Decision Date
19th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MONISHA BAHADUR CHETNA RUSTAGI
Respondent(s)
BASUDEB BAHADUR
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA , HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY
FOR ADMISSION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | FOR ADMISSION |
Orders
Summary of FAT/68/2026 The court dismissed Monisha Bahadur's appeal against an ex parte divorce decree dated June 21, 2022, filed 1243 days late. The appellant sought delay condonation, arguing the intervening Order IX Rule 13 application (dismissed August 25, 2025) should exclude time from the limitation period. The court rejected this, finding the appellant's bona fides questionable since her claim of non-service was disbelieved in the earlier application, and noting the two remedies operate in different fields. Critically, the court considered equitable factors—the respondent's remarriage and potential harm to his second spouse and children—in refusing condonation. Both the condonation application and appeal were dismissed as time-barred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of FAT/68/2026 The court dismissed Monisha Bahadur's appeal against an ex parte divorce decree dated June 21, 2022, filed 1243 days late. The appellant sought delay condonation, arguing the intervening Order IX Rule 13 application (dismissed August 25, 2025) should exclude time from the limitation period. The court rejected this, finding the appellant's bona fides questionable since her claim of non-service was disbelieved in the earlier application, and noting the two remedies operate in different fields. Critically, the court considered equitable factors—the respondent's remarriage and potential harm to his second spouse and children—in refusing condonation. Both the condonation application and appeal were dismissed as time-barred. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts