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. 68 of 2008() --------------------------- OPIDA.715/2006 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN OP: -------------------------------- AUGUSTUS CEASER, S/O.JOSEPH KALLUMMOODAN ANNAMA MANSION, MARATHADI JUNCTION, SHAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJULA NAIR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN OP: -------------------------------- RANI AUGUSTUS CEASER, D/O.YESUDAS, T.C.13/455, MIRANDA JUNCTION, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI FOR R1 SMT.M.A.BINDU FOR R1 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.Appl. No.194 of 2008 & Mat. Appeal No. 68 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT & ORDER Basant,J. This petition is to condone the delay of 224 days in filing a Mat. Appeal. The appeal is directed against an ex parte decree granting divorce at the instance of the respondent/wife. It is prayed that the delay of 224 days may be condoned. 2. The challenge is against the ex parte decree on merits. As there is no challenge on the part of the appellant against the ex parte evidence available, the impugned order appears to be unassailable on merits. The learned counsel was requested to explain why the appellant had not approached the Family Court to get the ex parte order set aside. No valid reasons are advanced to explain such conduct on the part of the appellant. C.M.Appl. No.194 of 2008 & Mat. Appeal No. 68 of 2008 -: 2 :- We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that this petition for condonation of delay is without any merit. Having not approached the Family Court to get the ex parte order set aside and the appellant not having shown satisfactory reasons for condonation of delay, we are satisfied that this application for condonation of delay only deserves to be dismissed. 3. In the result, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //True Copy// P.S. to Judge