IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 724 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2008 IN IA. 2333 /2007 IN OP.525/2007 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------ MANIKANDAN.M, S/O.KARUPPUNI MANJERI HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM POST,PERUMPADDAPPU VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SIVADASAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KARUPPUNI MANJERI HOUSE, ERAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SOUMYA.O, 22 YEARS, D/O.VELAYUDHAN, ODAMAKKAL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBU, KOOTTANADU POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) FOR R1 SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No. 724 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The appellant filed a petition for Divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That application happened to be allowed ex parte. Subsequently, on an application filed by the respondent as I.A.No.2333 of 2007, the same was restored to file. Thereafter, when the original petition, O.P.No.525 of 2007, was taken up for consideration, the appellant herein who is the petitioner in the Divorce petition happened to be absent. So, his petition was dismissed. The present appeal is filed against the order dated 14th January, 2008, by which ex parte order was set aside and the Divorce petition was restored to file. That order was passed after publication and in spite of such publication, the appellant herein Mat.Appeal.No.724 of 2008 2 was absent, and, therefore, he was set ex parte. It was, in those circumstances, that the application was restored to file after setting aside ex parte order passed against the respondent. It is challenging the correctness of that order that the present appeal is filed. 2. The appellant does not dispute that there was a paper publication. If so, he cannot be heard to contend that notice was not served. Notice by paper publication is one of the modes of serving notice. At any rate, it is only an order setting aside ex parte decree. But subsequently, the appellant happened to be absent. If so, the appellant could have moved an application for setting aside the order dismissing the original petition, O.P.No.525 of 2007, for his absence. Therefore, now the remedy open to the petitioner is only to seek restoration of O.P.No.525 of 2007, by showing good cause. We do not find, any reason as to why, if such an application is filed, the court below will not consider the matter on merits and dispose of the Mat.Appeal.No.724 of 2008 3 same, in accordance with law. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to seek such remedy, this petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nj.