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 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 17 of 2010(B) --------------------------- I.A.No.1230 of 2009 DT.07.10.09 IN UNNUMBERED O.P OF FAMILY COURT,THIRUVALLA ........................ APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------ RAZIYA, D/O.PATHUKUTTY, PALATHINKAL VEEDU, MUVATTUPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT : PETITIONER ------------------------- BADARIDDIN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED MUSTAFFA, KANJIRAVILAYIL VEEDU, PAZHAKULAM WEST MURI, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** Mat.Appeal No.17 of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against an order by which restoration of an application dismissed for default was ordered to be restored subject to conditions regarding cost. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit itself is a vexatious one. It was initially presented before the civil court. It was later returned for re-presentation before the Family Court. When it was later presented, there was a delay. An application for condonation of delay was filed. That was dismissed for default. Later application for restoration of that petition was also dismissed for default. It is the petition for restoration of that petition, that has been allowed on conditions now. 2. We have heard both counsel. We are not persuaded to agree that our jurisdiction in appeal deserves to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. We are not entering into a detailed discussion about the bona fides of the suit and the cause of the delay. All relevant submissions can be and will have to be made before the Family Court. Mat.Appeal No.17 of 2010 2 3. This Mat.Appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/