IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 733 of 2011 ----------------------------------- IA.5716/09 & 5717/09 IN OP.336/2005 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- BALAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, THIRUVANCHIKULAM HOUSE, VADAKKUMMURI.P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ VIJI, D/O. SIVARAMAN, CHEMMAPPILLY HOUSE, KARATAM.P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. PIN 680 711. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN MA 733/2011 ANNEXURE-1 PHOTOCOPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DT. 6.8.11. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- C.M.Appln.2407 OF 2011 & Mat.A.No.733 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father-in-law of the respondent. He was the second defendant in a proceeding initiated by the respondent, making claim towards return of ornaments, household articles etc. That O.P. was instituted before the Family Court in 2005. That was after certain proceedings on the basis of complaints before the Vanitha Cell. She got custody of one of the children in such proceedings. She has three children with her now. After attending the counselling proceedings, the respondents before the court below – appellant and his son, deserted the proceedings and were declared ex parte. The claim of the woman for 15 sovereigns of gold and household articles with an alternate prayer for Rs.95,000/- was taken up for consideration ex parte and the MA.733/11 2 Family Court granted a decree only for recovery of Rs.50,000/- with 6% interest and with no order as to costs. 2. We perused that ex parte judgment to consider whether we should issue notice on the present matter which is an appeal against the order refusing to condone the delay of 640 days in applying to set aside the ex parte decree. That application is filed only by the appellant who is the father-in-law, who now says that his son is missing. That application was not supported by any medical evidence, though the appellant had claimed before the court below that he had suffered a fall. The impugned order is rendered considering all relevant aspects and finding no reason to hold that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. Consequently, the application to set aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed. 3.Now, this appeal is before us with yet another application for condonation of delay of 70 days in instituting the same. The pleading now is that he was under continuous treatment MA.733/11 3 following the fall and that there was delay in getting the court order. A photostat copy of a medical certificate is now produced before us. That certificate dated 6.8.2011 is issued by a Vaidyan saying that the appellant was under treatment by another Vaidyan at an earlier point of time. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the Vaidyan who had treated the appellant earlier is no more. 4.Looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the views expressed by the learned Judge of the Family Court while dismissing the application for condonation of delay. There is no merit on the basis of which the Family Court could have held that there was sufficient cause to condone the enormous delay of 640 days. Also having seen the merits of the claim and the quality of the decree that has been granted to a woman with three children, we do not find that justice would be rendered by admitting or entertaining this matter. MA.733/11 4 For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to condone the delay in instituting the appeal. The C.M.Application and the appeal are dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge kkb.19/11.