IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 959 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.NO.2075/2010 IN OP.1018/2009 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- IBRAHIM, S/O. RAYIN (LATE), AGED 37 YEARS, THONDIPULAN HOUSE, MANKADA.P.O., PULIKKAL PARAMBU, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------------- KHADEEJA, D/O. MUHAMMED AGED 31 YEARS, PILATHODAN HOUSE, KADANNAMANNA.P.O. MANKADA AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011 ALONG WITH RPFC NO. 390 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- MAT.APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2010 E & R.P.(F.C.).NO.390 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th January, 2011. JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. These cases being connected and between the same parties, we dispose of the same by this common Judgment. 2. Petitioner in R.P.(FC).No.390/2010 is the husband of the first respondent and father of other respondents. The appellant in Mat. Appeal No.959/2010 is the husband of the respondent in the Appeal. 3. R.P.(FC).No.390/2010 is filed against the common order passed in M.C. No.1081/2009. There is a further prayer sought to set aside the ex parte order dated 06.05.2010. The Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the common order passed in I.A. MA.959/10 & RP(FC).390/2010 2 No.2075/2010 in O.P.No.1018/2009. 4. As already noted, M.C. No.1081/2009 was filed claiming maintenance for the wife and children of the original petitioner. O.P.No.1018/2009 was filed by the wife of the appellant claiming return of money, gold ornaments and other articles. The M.C. and the O.P. came to be decided ex parte against the original petitioner/appellant. He filed application to set aside the said decisions. It is the said request which was rejected by the common order passed. 5. We notice and there is no dispute about it that pursuant to the order passed in R.P.(FC).No.390/2010, the original petitioner/appellant has deposited the entire amount due in M.C.No.1081/2009. Of course, the case of the original petitioner/appellant was that the power of attorney was discussing about the case with his counsel in the verandah of the court and he could not appear in the court hall when the cases in the special list was called on 6.5.2010. Having regard to the nature of the case and MA.959/10 & RP(FC).390/2010 3 the impact on the rights of the parties and also the fact that the original petitioner/appellant has deposited the amount as directed by this Court, we feel that there is a need for adjudication on merits. We take a liberal view and we allow R.P.(FC).No.390/2010 and Mat. Appeal No.959/2010 and set aside the common order rejecting the application to set aside the ex parte decisions and direct the Family Court, Malappuram to take up M.C.No.1081/2009 and OP.No.1018/2009 and take a decision on the same on the merits of the matter. We further order that the amount which has already been deposited by the original petitioner /appellant in R.P.(FC).No.390/2010 shall be released to the respondents in R.P.(FC).No.390/2010. The Family Court, Malappuram will expedite the matter and take a decision in the matter within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment before it. We further direct that the amount which is deposited and ordered to be released to the MA.959/10 & RP(FC).390/2010 4 respondents shall be adjusted dependant on the decision to be taken by the Family Court in the matter. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge