IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11515 of 2010(R) -------------------------------------- OP.1465/2007 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- VEENA @ JASEENA, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O AHAMEDUNNI, KADAVIL HOUSE, VALLUVELLI, KOONAMMAVU P.O. BY ADV. SMT.LEKHA SURESH SRI.ASHOK SURESH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- VINU P.R., S/O RAJENDRAN, PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., EROOR SOUTH, NOW RESIDING AT GI B BLOCK, KATAPANA FLAT, KULATHOR, CHENNAI, TAMILNADU, PIN-600099. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.11515 of 2010-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order by which the applications filed by the respondent to set aside the exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing the same has been allowed by the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is stated that the impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is the case of the petitioner that the Court below seriously erred in allowing the applications. It is stated that the respondent was represented by lawyer and was given ample opportunity to contest the case. What is more important is that the Family Court itself held that there is wilful laches on the part of the respondent in prosecuting the O.P and that sufficient opportunity was given to him to substantiate his contentions. However, the Family Court found it fit to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte decree on payment of cost. 2. We must remind ourselves that we are dealing with the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. The WPC 11515/2010 -2- substance of the matter is that the Family Court has exercised discretion to condone the delay and to set aside the exparte decree. Probably we may have taken a different view if we are exercising the power of the Family Court. To substitute our view for that of the Court is part of the appellate jurisdiction. Taking note of the limits under Article 227 and also taking note of the need for an adjudicated decision, we decline jurisdiction. At the same time, we direct the Family Court to take up O.P.No.1465/2007 and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS