Elderly Male Members Can Be Dependent On Younger Female Member To Handle Family Litigation: MP High Court Debunks 'Misogynistic' Assumption

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that elderly male members of a family can be dependent upon a younger female member to take necessary steps in family litigation. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 403]

Holding that any assumption to the contrary would be "inherently gender-biased" and "typically misogynistic", the bench of Justice Anuradha Shukla stated:

"The reasoning adopted by the First Appellate Court is not a legally sound proposition for rejecting the application for condonation of delay, which was based on the dependency of all appellants on Mohar Bai to file the appeal. 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". 

A civil suit was filed by heirs of female descendants of Jugri and her son Gorelal, claiming share in the suit property on the grounds that it was ancestral property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit after finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the ancestral nature of the property. The plaintiffs later filed a first appeal, which was dismissed by Additional District Judge on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed time period. 

The appellants, before the High Court, argued that they had provided bona fide reasons for delay and that the First Appellate Court adopted a literal approach instead of a justice-oriented one. 

The High Court noted that the application for condonation of delay stated that Mohar Bai was looking after litigation proceedings and was substantially ill between November 25 and December 12, 2011, because of which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. 

The bench noted that the First Appellate Court did not reject the explanation but noted that no material was produced to establish Mohar Bai's illness. 

However, the bench further noted that the parties were not given an opportunity to lead evidence concerning the reasons for delay and were merely given a chance to present their arguments. The bench emphasized, 

"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". 

The bench further noted that the First Appellate Court adopted another reason for dismissal, i.e. that other appellants were older than Mohar Bai and it could not be said that she was handling the litigation. 

The High Court rejected this reasoning, terming the assumption to be inherently gender biased and typically misogynistic. It emphasized that such assumptions undermine capability of female family members. Accordingly the bench directed, 

"the second appeal is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the First Appellate Court with a direction to provide opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if they so desire, regarding the application of Section 5 of Limitation Act and decide it in terms of the facts of the case and the applicable law. It is further directed that if the application is allowed and the delay is condoned, the First Appellate Court shall, after granting a due hearing to the parties, decide the appeal on its merits". 

For Appellant: Advocate Prashant Sharma

For Respondent no 2: Advocate Navnidhi Parharya

For Respondents. 4 to 6: Advocates Veyankatesh Budholiya and Gaurav Mishra

For Respondent no 7: Advocate Arman Ali

For State: Government Advocate Shiraj Quaireshi