Partly allowed

Shanly K.P, v. Vinitha Prasannan

Kerala HC12 Jul 2022Mat.Appeal/511/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This matrimonial appeal challenged the Family Court's order declining an application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The High Court held that sufficient grounds existed to set aside the decree despite the delay, imposing a cost of Rs. 10,000 and directing disposal of the main matter within two months.

What did the court decide?

The ex-parte decree shall be subject to setting aside upon filing objections by 30.07.2022; appellants to pay Rs. 10,000 cost.

Shanly K.P, Vs Vinitha Prasannan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2020

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1452/2013 OF FAMILY

¶8

COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶9

APPELLANTS:

¶10

1 SHANLY K.P, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.K.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, KOOTHAPPILLIL HOUSE, AYSHA ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-682 019.

¶11

2 V.B.AMBUJAKSHI, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.K.PRABHAKARAN, RESIDING AT INDEEVARAM, KOOTHAPPILLIL HOUSE, AYSHA ROAD, PONNURUNNI, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI-682 019.

¶12

BY ADVS. V.V.SIDHARTHAN (SR.) SRI.D.G.VIPIN SRI.KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

VINITHA PRASANNAN, AGED 42 YEARS D/O.V.K.PRASANNAN, ASWATHY BINNY ROAD, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682 006.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

..2..

¶18

MAT.APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2020

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶21

This appeal arises from a common order declining an application to set aside the ex-parte decree after condoning the delay. The delay involved was only about 81 days. The Family Court dismissed the application taking note of the fact that though several opportunities were given to the appellants to raise objection in the main petition, no objections were filed.

¶22

Having perused the case, we are of the view that the appellant had made out sufficient ground to set aside the ex-parte decree after condoning the delay. However, the latches on their part can be remedied by payment of cost. Accordingly we impose cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The cost shall be paid within a period of two weeks. If the objections are not filed, that shall be filed on or before 30.07.2022. The parties are directed to be present before the Family Court on 1.08.2022. thereafter, the Family Court shall dispose of

¶23

MAT.APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2020

¶24

..3..

¶25

the main matter itself within a period of two months. This Mat. Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS

JUDGE

Shanly K.P, v. Vinitha Prasannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanly K.P, v. Vinitha Prasannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Marshal Mohammed Vs Sajina.a

Danish Varghese Vs Jancy Danish

Jansy K.J. Vs V.C. Rajendran

Mr. Ashish Padmanabhan, Vs Venugopal

Rani Vs Mathew M Desouza

Dr.Shyla, Vs Dr.Jaleel