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 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 791 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2007 IN OP.431/2004 IN OP.273/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ P.RAJAMANI AMMA @ RADHA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MULLAKKAL HOUSE, PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.S.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, PULICKAL HOUSE, PANGADA P.O., VELLOOR KARA, PAMPADY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * C.M.Appl.No.2912 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.791 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th 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 817 days in filing a Mat.Appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order granting divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. That application was filed by the respondent herein. 2. The parties were before this court in another Mat.Appeal No.273/07. That matter was referred to the Lok Adalath. Parties settled their disputes before the Lok Adalath. As a term of the said settlement, parties agreed to live together after setting aside the order of divorce granted as per the impugned order. It is accordingly that the parties belatedly have come before this court to file this appeal. Respondent has entered appearance. A learned counsel appears for him. The learned counsel have placed before us the order passed by the Lok Adalath dated 10/09/2009 in Mat.Appeal No.273/07. They have also filed a joint statement dated 26/10/2009 duly signed by the parties and countersigned by their counsel. C.M.Appl.No.2912 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.791 of 2009 2 3. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the application for condonation of delay can be allowed. The appeal can be admitted and allowed. The impugned order can be set aside, as agreed. 4. In the result, a) C.M.A.No.2912/07 is allowed. Delay of 817 days is condoned. b) Mat.Appeal No.791/09 is allowed as agreed by both sides. c) The impugned order granting divorce in O.P.No.273/04 passed by the Family Court, Kottayam is set aside. d) O.P.No.273/04 shall stand dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge C.M.Appl.No.2912 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.791 of 2009 3 C.M.Appl.No.2912 of 2009 & Mat.Appeal No.791 of 2009 4 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009