Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 9TH ASHADHA, 1945 MAT.APPEAL NO. 278 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 211/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 AJITH KUMAR AGED 47 YEARS S/O LATE VASUDEVAN, EDAKKUNNIL VEEDU, 2 SANTHA KUMARI AGED 71 YEARS W/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, EDAKKUNNIL VEEDU, K.S.PRAVEEN ASWATHI SURESH RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: MANJU S AGED 43 YEARS D/O RAJENDRAN, PULIKKERIL KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, KAIPPUZHA MURI, KULANADA P.O KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689503. MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL(K/963/2009) R.RAJESH (VARKALA)(K/78/2000) SAMEER M NAIR(K/000481/2017) GEETHU KRISHNAN(K/001199/2021) SAILAKSHMI MENON(K/1518/2021) ABHISHEK JOHNSON(K/1145/2023)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2023 2
JUDGMENT
Sophy Thomas, J.
The respondents in OP No.211 of 2015, on the file of Family Court, Pathanamthitta are the appellants herein, challenging the orders on petitions filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment, restoration etc.
2. The wife filed OP No.211 of 2015 for recovery of money
and gold. The respondents, who are the appellants herein, were set ex parte, and an ex parte decree was passed on 19.08.2016, directing the appellants to pay Rs.12 lakh towards value of 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments along with Rs.10 lakh, with interest. The 2nd appellant filed I.A No.1487 of 2016 for setting aside the ex parte judgment. That I.A was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the appellants filed I.A No.1282 of 2017, for restoring that petition, and that was also dismissed for default on 28.11.2018. Then they filed I.A No.310 of 2019 for restoring the application to set aside the ex parte judgment along with I.A No.309 of 2019 to condone delay. The Family Court dismissed both the I.As. Now, the appellants have approached Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2023 3 this Court challenging the orders of the Family Court, after a long delay of 1681 days.
3. The respondent/wife filed detailed counter to the delay condonation petition filed by the appellants. According to her, the appellants miserably failed to explain the reasons for delay
in filing this appeal. From 2016 onwards, they were dragging the matter. The petitions filed by them one after another before the Family Court, were all dismissed for non prosecution. Their attempt is only to drag the proceedings. If they were genuinely aggrieved, they would not have waited for more than 4½ years to file this appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent.
5. On going through the affidavit filed by the appellants along with the petition to condone the delay, no valid grounds
are stated, to explain the delay of more than 4½ years. The appellants were not vigilant enough in defending the case before the Family Court. The applications filed by them were dismissed for non prosecution. Since no grounds are made out to condone Mat.Appeal No.278 of 2023 4 the delay of more than 4½ years, we are not inclined to condone the delay. So, C.M.Appln No.1 of 2023 is dismissed and consequently, the Mat.Appeal is not admitted and hence dismissed. Admittedly, the execution petition filed by the respondent/wife is pending before Family Court, Pathanamthitta. The appellants can seek for an amicable settlement through mediation, and the Family Court is directed to facilitate the same. The appellants are at liberty to work out further remedies if any, in accordance with law. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE SOPHY THOMAS smp