IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 696 of 2008() ---------------------------- ORDER IN I.A.656/04 IN OP.524/2003 AND THE ORDER IN O.P.524/03 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT: -------------------------- K.K.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, EDAKKOTTE MEETHAL HOUSE, ULLIYERI AMSOM DESOM, ULLIYERI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: -------------------------- RASITHA (NOW MAJOR), THEKKEDATH, KARAYADE AMSOM DESOM, D/O.THEKKEDATH VASANTHA, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKKODE. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mat. Appeal No.696 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 21st January, 2009 JUDGMENT P.R.Raman,J. The petitioner-appellant was the respondent in O.P.No.524 of 2003 on the file of the Family Court, Kozhikode. That was a petition for declaration of the paternity of the child. The petitioner remained ex parte and decree was passed in favour of the wife who was the petitioner in the said O.P. Coming to know of the ex parte decree passed, the petitioner moved an application to set aside the ex parte decree by filing I.A.No.656/04. But on the day on which the I.A. came up for consideration, again the petitioner and his counsel was absent and hence that petition was also dismissed. It is against the ex parte decree as well as the order dismissing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree that this appeal is preferred. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the day on which I.A.No.656/04 came up for consideration his Advocate on record was not present as he has gone abroad seeking employment, which fact he did not know and he thought that the Advocate will appear on the day on which the I.A. stood posted for hearing. If this reason is true, it will be a good ground to set aside the ex parte order. But then the petitioner did not Mat.A.No.696/08 - 2 - move the court below by filing any application to review of the order in I.A.No.656/04 thereby the court had no occasion to consider the correctness of the reason so put forth. In the circumstances and in the absence of the Review Petition filed, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to the right of the appellant to move the court below for appropriate relief. The appeal stands dismissed subject to the right as aforesaid. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE srd C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE Mat.A.No.696/08 - 3 -