IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 362 of 2009 ---------------------------- OP.864/1999 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT ------------------------ SUDHA R.PAI, AGED 36, D/O.RAJENDRA PAI, SURAJ NIVAS, 9/986, MANTHARA ROAD, KOCHI.2. BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT: --------------- SOMANATHA PAI, S/O.NARAYANA PAI, CHIRAKULAM VEEDU, PARAVOOTHARA VEEDU, NORTH PARUR. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== C.M.APPLN.NO.1164/2009 & MAT.APPEAL NO.362 OF 2009 ============================ DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2009 ORDER Basant,J. The appellant herein is the wife who has suffered a decree for divorce on the ground of cruelty. It was an ex parte decree. That petition was filed as early as in 1999. Long later, the appellant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree after condoning the long delay of 2704 days in filing such application. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Family Court dismissed both applications. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. She has come to this Court with this Mat Appeal to challenge that order. That again has been filed with the petition to condone the delay of 273 days in filing the same. The learned counsel prays that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted. MAT.A.362/2009 -2- 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail. In response to a specific question by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent- husband has already remarried. We are not persuaded to agree that the delay of 273 days deserves to be condoned. In coming to the conclusion, we take note of that inordinate delay of 2704 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order as also the admitted circumstance that the respondent- has remarried. 4. We are not satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned. In these circumstances, this application for condonation of delay is dismissed without ordering notice to the respondent. Consequently, this Mat.Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks. MAT.A.362/2009 -3-