The High Court dismissed the matrimonial appeal challenging the rejection of applications to set aside an ex parte decree. The court rejected condonation of delay but granted three months' stay on decree execution. (61 words)
The execution of the decree in O.P. No. 638 of 2007 directed not to be executed for a period of three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012/29TH ASHADHA 1934
Mat.Appeal.No. 331 of 2012 ()
I.A..NOS.1638 & 1639 OF 2011 IN OP.638/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
VENUGOPALAN
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, KAVUNGAL VEEDU MANKADA, PALLIPURAM, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAMSUDIN
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
PRAVEENA
D/O.VENUGOPALAN, KRISHNA VIHAR, MANJERIKAVU, KONGAD POST - 678631, PALAKKAD.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-072012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
Mat. Appeal No.331 of 2012
Dated 20th July, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The respondent, who is the daughter of the appellant filed O.P.No.638 of 2007 before the Family Court, Palakkad against the petitioner, claiming her marriage expenses. She claimed Rs.1,50,000/-. During the pendency of the Original Petition before the Family Court, her marriage took place. The Family Court partly decreed the Original Petition as per judgment and decree dated 28th November, 2008. As against the claim for Rs.1.5 lakhs, the Family Court granted a decree for Rs.1,00,000/-.
2
Mat. Appeal No.331 of 2012
Chennai and he was not served with notice. Only substituted service was effected. He came to know about the decree only later. He stated that he was on pilgrimage and therefore, he could not appear before court. He also stated that he was not residing in the address shown in the Original Petition.
Mat. Appeal No.331 of 2012
3
not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. The Mat. Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
that he has only a fractional right in the 11 cents of land and that he may be granted a reasonable time to pay off the decree debt. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that three months' time can be granted to the appellant to pay off the decree debt in O.P.No.638 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. Accordingly, there will be a direction that the decree in O.P.No. 638 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad shall not be executed for a period of three months, in order to enable the appellant to discharge the decree debt.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE.
Sd/-
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
tgs
(true copy)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing application to set aside ex parte decree should be condoned.
Whether the matrimonial appeal has any merit.
Venugopalan
Praveena
K.T. Sankaran
M.L. Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
