Calling it misogynistic reasoning with no basis on record, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an appellate court’s finding that elderly male members of a family could not have depended on a younger woman to file their appeal, and remanded the delay question for fresh decision.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Gwalior: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that elderly male members of a family can be dependent on a younger female member to take the necessary steps in family litigation, describing the contrary view taken by a first appellate court as “inherently gender-biased” and “typically misogynistic”, and has allowed a second appeal that had been dismissed solely on the ground of an 18-day delay [Imrat Singh and Others v. Chimna and Others].
A single bench of Justice Anuradha Shukla, sitting at Gwalior, set aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, and sent the matter back with a direction to give the parties an opportunity to lead evidence on the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The case
The suit was filed by the legal heirs of the female descendants of Jugri and her son Gorelal, claiming shares in property they said was ancestral. The Court of the Second Civil Judge Class-II, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, dismissed the suit on October 12, 2011, holding that the ancestral nature of the property had not been proved.
The plaintiffs filed a first appeal 18 days late. In their application for condonation of delay, they said the appeal could not be filed in time because Mohar Bai, one of the appellants, who was managing the proceedings for the family, had fallen ill. The Additional District Judge, Ganj Basoda, rejected the application and dismissed the appeal on December 17, 2014, on limitation alone, without going into the merits.
The appellate court gave two reasons. First, no document had been placed on record to show the nature of Mohar Bai’s illness, and she was described as a young woman of only 35 years. Second, the other appellants were older than her and were the male members of the family, so the court rejected the idea that they had been dependent on her for timely filing of the appeal. The appellants then moved the High Court in second appeal, which was admitted on the question whether the first appellate court had erred in law in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation.
No chance to prove the illness
On the first ground, the High Court found from the record that the parties had only been heard in argument and had never been asked to prove their contentions through evidence. Rejecting the illness ground for want of documents, without first giving that opportunity, was not sustainable. The Court said:
“This Court is of the view that unless an opportunity to prove the ground of illness was provided to the parties, the said ground could not have been rejected on the basis of non-production of documentary or oral evidence. Providing opportunity of evidence was sine qua non before arriving at a conclusion that the appellants have failed to prove the ground of delay.”
‘Typically misogynistic’
The Court reserved its sharpest words for the second ground. It held that the appellate court’s assumption, that older men in the family could not have relied on a younger woman to pursue the appeal, was not a legally sound basis for rejecting the delay application, and had no foundation in the record:
“The ground assigned for rejection is a inherently gender-biased assertion by the First Appellate Court that elderly male members of a family cannot be dependent on a younger female member to take the necessary steps in a family litigation. This observation is typically misogynistic and undermines the capability of a female member of the family. There is absolutely no basis on the record of the Appellate Court to justify such reasoning. It appears that the Appellate Court ventured to pass such an unwarranted and skeptic remark solely on the basis of surmises and assumptions,, which cannot be approved under law.”
The directions
Allowing the second appeal, the Court remanded the matter to the first appellate court. The parties may lead evidence, if they wish, on the Section 5 application, which is to be decided on the facts and the applicable law. If the delay is condoned, the appellate court must hear the parties and decide the first appeal on its merits.
Why The Misogynistic Reasoning Judgment Matters
The ruling restates two settled points on condonation of delay. A court that doubts the reason given for a delay must let the party prove it before rejecting it, and a short delay should not shut out an appeal on the merits without a fair inquiry. Here the first appeal was lost on an 18-day delay without any evidence ever being called for.
The judgment also adds to a growing line of rulings in which superior courts have called out gender stereotypes in judicial reasoning. By holding that an assumption about who in a family can be trusted to run its litigation is a surmise, not a finding, the Court has made clear that stereotyped views about women’s capability cannot stand in for evidence when deciding a party’s rights.
Case Title: Imrat Singh and Others v. Chimna and Others [Second Appeal No. 30 of 2015]
Bench: Justice Anuradha Shukla, Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior
Date of Judgment: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Prashant Sharma for the appellants; Advocate Navnidhi Parharya for respondent No. 2; Advocate Veyankatesh Budholiya for respondents No. 4 to 6; Advocate Arman Ali for respondent No. 7; Advocate Shiraj Quaireshi for the State