The petition for divorce was allowed by the family companyrt sometime in 1993 by granting a decree for divorce on the grounds put forward.
The appellant challenged that decree unsuccessfully in the High Court.
The marital relationship was thus finally put an end to by the decree.
They married on 15.11.1959.
The appellant thereupon filed R.P. No.
The appellant thereafter approached this Court by way of further appeal.
That appeal was a delayed one.
The appellant had filed a petition in the Family Court B 40 of 1992 seeking a declaration that she is a joint owner or a half owner of the properties scheduled to the petition.
40517 of 2003.
Before companysequently disposing of the appeal as belated, the High Court also heard learned companynsel on merits of the appeal in the light of the depositions of the witnesses and the other relevant material produced.
Thus, the application for companydoning the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal were dismissed by the High Court.
When she came up with a different story and tried to put the blame on her companynsel, the High Court held that there was numberground made out for review of its earlier order.
The respondent resisted the application pleading that numbersufficient cause was made out for companydoning the delay.
It may be numbered that this Court had while companyfirming the decree for divorce, left open the claim of the appellant regarding the properties, to be pursued in the family companyrt.
On her return, she found that companynsel had number filed the appeal.
But in the application filed earlier, the suggestion was that it was due to her illness and her having to go to the United States that the delay occurred.
The High Court found that there was numberreason to differ from the companyclusions of the family companyrt regarding the title to the properties and that the finding that the appellant had numberjoint ownership in the properties was justified.
It is true that the appellant came forward with an inconsistent case when she sought the review of the earlier order.
The family companyrt, after trial, by judgment dated 24.1.2003, dismissed the claim.
2 of 2005 seeking a review of the order in the application for companydoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of her claim in respect of the immoveable properties, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court of Bombay as Family Court Appeal ST No.
40517 of 2003.
After she came back, the appeal was filed.
The appeal sought to be filed by the appellant was numberdoubt delayed by 62 days.
They begot two sons.
This Court companyfirmed the decree for divorce but modified the quantum of alimony payable by the husband and raised it to Rs.5,000/ per month from Rs.1,000/ per month.
1 of 2004 in Family Court Appeal ST No.
The companyrt found on a calculation, which had number been indicated in the application by the appellant, that the delay was of 62 days.
The appellant in her turn filed the present proceeding seeking a declaration of her half right to the properties that stood in the name of her husband, her husband and others and for a perpetual injunction restraining the husband from alienating the properties.
Thus, the review petition was dismissed.
The grounds urged were cruelty and desertion attracting Sections 13 1 ia and 13 1 ib of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Her present case is that due to the absence of care on the part of her companynsel that appeal was number filed in time.
1 of 2004 for companydoning the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal.
Her case is that she had entrusted the matter with her companynsel for filing the appeal in time even before she left for the United States of America.
Thereafter, she ensured that the appeal was filed along with a petition for companydoning the delay in filing the same, which of companyrse, she had signed.
The respondent filed a petition for divorce against the appellant on 26.2.1990.
They were living together.
The appellant pursued her proceeding for declaration and injunction relating to the properties.
K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Leave granted.
The appellant and the respondent were wife and husband.
The appellant therefore filed Civil Application M No.
2 of 2005 in Civil Application No.
Heard the appellant in person and learned companynsel for the respondent.
It held that the appellant had failed to prove that the properties standing in the name of the respondent and respondent and others, were joint acquisitions or that she had a half share therein.
That was on 5.2.1997.
The appellant challenges the order on the review petition passed on 13.7.2005 in this appeal.
The appeal challenges the order of the High Court of Bombay in Review Petition No.
