In the Matter of the Marriage of Max Munish Mehta and Rajni Kalra Mehta and In the Interest of Aaron Mehta, a Child--Appeal from 296th District Court of Collin County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00136-CV

______________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

MAX MUNISH MEHTA AND

RAJNI KALRA MEHTA AND

IN THE INTEREST OF

AARON MEHTA, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 296-51926-03

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Opinion by Justice Ross

O P I N I O N

Rajni Kalra Mehta has filed a document that evidences a desire to appeal from a divorce granted August 6, 2003, by the 296th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas. // In that document, she states a number of possible grounds for her appeal, most of which involve alleged improper actions taken by her husband in connection with the divorce. The situation is complicated by the fact Rajni is representing herself in this matter and resides in India. Our correspondence with her has been sent to her address in that country.

Her notice of appeal was late-filed, but under the application of the mailbox rule, it appears it was filed within the fifteen-day grace period provided by Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. On October 24, 2003, we sent a letter to Rajni in which we explained this and directed her to forward a motion to extend time for filing her notice of appeal pursuant to the rule. We also explained that a record would need to be requested, paid for, and filed with this Court in order for her appeal to proceed. In that letter, we also set out the relevant rules, enclosed a copy of our docketing statement for her to complete and return, and informed her about the need to remit the appropriate filing fee to this Court. We also warned her she was required to provide this Court with clerk's and reporter's records, and that those records were due no later than December 23, 2003.

We warned her that, if she did not proceed with her appeal as set out above, her appeal would be subject to dismissal and warned her that, to avoid this result, any response or motion must be filed with this Court by December 8, 2003.

More than thirty days have now elapsed beyond the due date. Rajni has not contacted this Court. She has neither requested nor paid for the preparation of a record and has taken no action to pursue her appeal.

We dismiss the appeal.

Donald R. Ross

Justice

Date Submitted: January 7, 2004

Date Decided: January 8, 2004