IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 204 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.544/2005 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT: -------------- AMBATTUPARAMBIL ABDULRAHIMAN, S/O AMBATTUPARAMBIL ABDULLA, VALLUVANADU STILL, KATTILATHANI, NEAR MUSLIM LEAGUE OFFICE, MANNARKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, THAZHEKODE AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT: --------------- KHAIRUNNISA, D/O KALLINGAL ABDU, KAKUTH AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, TEACHER, POOPPALAM DADAL HALAH ENGLISH SCHOOL, P.O.POOPPALAM. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No. 702 OF 2007 & Mat.Appeal No.204 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 O R D E R /J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 200 days in filing a Matrimonial Appeal. The Matrimonial Appeal in turn is directed against an order dismissing an application filed by the divorced husband against his divorced wife claiming return of movable and immovable properties which were purchased in the name of/given to the wife by the husband during coverture. 2. The application for condonation of delay is opposed vehemently by the learned counsel for the respondent. The learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal and the right of appeal is being invoked belatedly to vex and harass the respondent, who has secured divorce from the appellant/husband. 3. The delay is of 200 days. The delay is enormous and gross. The reason urged - that there was a communication gap between the counsel and the appellant, is not found to be Mat.Appeal No.204/07 -2- sufficient or inspiring to justify the prayer for condonation of delay. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the delay does not deserve to be condoned. 4. In our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in failure or miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the appellant to explain the nature of the challenge which he wants to raise against the impugned order. During coverture, properties were allegedly purchased in the name of the wife and were handed over by the husband to the wife. After the divorce, the husband is staking a claim for return of those properties. The court below found that there is nothing to come to the conclusion that the purchase was made exclusively using the funds of the husband. The court took note of the fact that the wife was educated and was having an employment. The court found that at any rate, those properties purchased in the name of the wife, when the husband and wife were living in happy matrimony are not liable to be returned by the wife to the husband. We find the approach made by the court below to be absolutely justified. We Mat.Appeal No.204/07 -3- do not find any merit in the challenge raised on merits. 5. To sum up, we do not find any reason to condone the long and enormous delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. We are further satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for condonation of delay does not result in any failure or miscarriage of justice. 6. In these circumstances, this application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, Mat.Appeal No.204/07 shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn