IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 242 of 2009() ---------------------------- OP.174/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)PETITIONER IN O.P.//RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- DR.P.M.NOORJAHAN, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O.P.A.MOIDEEN, "NAVEENETHAM",KUTHIRAVATTOM ROAD, P.O.PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN O.P/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- DR.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI,KARUPPAMVEETTIL, KAYPPAMANGALAM,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT P.O.BOX NO.4931,RAS AL QUIMA, U.A.E,PRESENT ADRESS PUTHANVETTIL HOUSE, PONNANI, P.O.PONNANI, PONNANI TALUK. BY // THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the Family Court setting aside the ex parte order passed in O.P. No.174 of 2008. The said Original Petition was filed by the divorced wife (petitioner herein) for declaration of her half right over an item of property acquired in the name of her husband during the subsistence of the marital tie. The Original Petition was filed in February, 2008. The respondent/husband is allegedly employed abroad. He was set ex parte on 27.6.2008. He filed the application to set aside the ex parte oder on 28.10.2008. That was allowed by the impugned order subject to conditions regarding payment of costs. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application to set aside the ex parte order was filed through the power of attorney holder and the application of the said power of attorney holder to permit him to represent the respondent has not been considered and disposed of so far. Mat. Appeal No.242/2009 2 3. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants any interference. However, we are satisfied that the request of the appellant's counsel can be accepted and the learned Judge of the Family Court can be directed to consider specifically whether the respondent/husband's application to permit him to appear through a power of attorney holder in the Original Petition deserves to be allowed or not. We direct that the said application which is said to be pending as I.A. No.2235 of 2008 must be considered by the learned Judge of the Family Court specifically after the ex parte order is set aside on compliance with the conditions imposed . 4. This Matrimonial Appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed with the above observation. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ Mat. Appeal No.242/2009 2 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. MAT.APPEAL NO. 242/2009 JUDGMENT 24th March, 2009 Mat. Appeal No.242/2009 2