Appeal against Family Court ex parte decree in matrimonial dispute. High Court set aside the ex parte decree allowing re-trial on merits after directing correction of counsel absence, while retaining security for future adjustment.
Ex parte decree set aside; case remanded to Family Court for fresh hearing on merits with a directive to proceed within 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 ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 13 of 2013 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 617/2005 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 03-05-2012
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS :
---------------------
1. K.AJAYAKUMAR, K.AJAYAKUMAR @ AJAYAN, S/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI,AMBIKA NIVAS, VETTIKAVALA P.O., VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. R.RETNAMMA, W/O.LATE KUTTAN PILLAI, AMBIKA NIVAS, VETTIKAVALA P.O., VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF :
---------------------
1. MINI, AGED 39 YEARS D/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, 'PRASANTHAM' VETTIKAVALA P.O., VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506.
2. SREELEKSHMI, AGED 13 YEARS D/O.MINI, 'PRASANTHAM', VETTIKAVALA P.O. VETTIKKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506. (MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1 BEING THE MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN).
R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.ANANTHANARAYANAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.
Mat.Appeal No.13 of 2013
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2013
JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
This appeal is filed against the order passed by the Family Court, Kottarakkara in O.S.No.617 of 2005.
Mat.Appeal No.13 of 2013 2
and the Family Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence of both sides. On 30.4.2012 the case was posted for evidence. On that day the appellants and their counsel remained absent. Accordingly, a report was made before the Family Court and on 3.5.2012, considering the materials available before it, the Family Court set the appellants ex parte and decreed the suit. In the suit, the Family Court has also recorded the submission of the first appellant that since she has remarried, she is not pressing her claim for maintenance. It is aggrieved by this ex parte decree, the appeal is filed.
Mat.Appeal No.13 of 2013 3
respondents and to adduce evidence in support of their contentions.
Mat.Appeal No.13 of 2013 4
they were absent on 30.4.2012 and that they should not be penalized for the laches if any of their counsel.
Mat.Appeal No.13 of 2013 5
maintenance allowance to the second respondent.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE
cms
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the ex parte decree ought to be set aside despite repeated defaults by the appellants.
Whether counsel's inexcusable absence should disentitle the litigants from cross-examining witnesses.
Whether the prolonged delay without appearance warrants setting aside judicial indulgence.
K. Ajayakumar
R. Retnamma
Mini
Sreelekshmi
Antony Dominic
P.D. Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
