IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 1013 of 2010(D) ----------------------------- OP.1193/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM AT ETTUMANOOR .................... APPELLANT : RESPONDENT ------------------------- JAMES JOSEPH, 3-C, MOUNT FORT APARTMENTS, LOGOS JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ------------------------- TIGI JAMES, KALARICKAL HOUSE, THAZHATHANGADI P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 001. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *********************** Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2010 ***************************** Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant has come before this Court to challenge the impugned decree which obliges him to return money and ornaments to the respondent/his wife. 2. The impugned order is an exparte order. The appeal is filed along with a petition to condone the long delay of 552 days in fling the appeal. 3. The matter was discussed at the Bar. The learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to explain how the challenge on merits can be sustained. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant was also requested to explain why no petition has been filed to get the exparte order set aside. 4. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant only submits that these application for condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal may now be dismissed as withdrawn making it clear that such dismissal as withdrawn will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner/appellant to Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2010 2 move the Family Court to get the exparte order set aside in accordance with law. 5. We accept the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant. The petition for condonation of delay and the Matrimonial Appeal are hence dismissed as withdrawn making it clear that the dismissal of the petition for condonation of delay and the rejection of the Matrimonial Appeal as withdrawn will not in any way affect the rights of the petitioner/appellant to move the Family Court to get the exparte order passed against him set aside in accordance with law. 6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant forthwith. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) rtr/ Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2010 3 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ********************** Unnumbered Mat.Appeal of 2010 ********************* Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel prays for time to do further research. We request Dr.Sebastian Champappilly (S.276) to render assistance as Amicus Curiae on the question as to whether the stipulation of the period of 30 days under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act or the general stipulation under Article 116(a) of the Limitation Act would prevail in the light of the observations in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73]. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/