IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 845 of 2009() ---------------------------- I.A.Nos.1661/08 & 1662/08 in OPHMA.24/2004 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------- K.KUMAR PRADAPSEN, S/O.PANKAJAKSHAKUMAR, 'NANDANAM',HOUSE NO.33, DEVA NAGAR, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.P.M.SANEER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- NIDHI, D/O. SUDHAKARAN, NIDHI BHAVAN, POOVANATHUMMOODU, AVANAVANCHERY, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Application No.3175 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.845 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2009 O R D E R & J U D G M E N T Basant,J This application is to condone the delay of 2 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against the dismissal of applications for restoration of a petition for divorce and condonation of the delay exceeding three years in filing the same. We are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. This application is allowed. Delay is condoned even without ordering notice to the respondent. 2. We now come to the question of admission. The appellant had filed an application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition was dismissed for non- prosecution. The petitioner slept without action for a long time even after dismissal of that petition. Three years and three months after the dismissal, the appellant/petitioner woke up and filed an application for restoration along with a petition for condonation of delay. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by C.M.A.No.3175/09 & Mat.Appeal No.845/09 2 the impugned order, took the view that even assuming that the appellant's father, his power of attorney, could not prosecute the petition properly and that led to the dismissal of the petition, there is no justification whatsoever for the long, gross and inordinate delay exceeding three years in the filing of the application for restoration. It is in that view of the matter that the court below proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the application for restoration. 3. We have rendered our anxious consideration to the questions raised. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned order suffers from any vice which warrants interference in this appeal. As rightly found by the court below, even assuming that the appellant's power of attorney/aged father could not appear before the court below and that led to the dismissal of the application for default, the appellant has not even attempted to show any valid and justifiable reason to condone the long and inordinate delay in filing the application for restoration. C.M.A.No.3175/09 & Mat.Appeal No.845/09 3 4. We do not, in these circumstances, find any merit in this appeal. We are satisfied that, it is not necessary to order notice to the respondent to resolve the controversy raised. 5. This Mat.Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limini. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.A.No.3175/09 & Mat.Appeal No.845/09 4 C.M.A.No.3175/09 & Mat.Appeal No.845/09 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009