C.M. Appl. No. 20191 of 2010 and Mat. Appeal No. 704 of 2010. Case: Moideen K.P. Vs Kadeejath Kubra. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | C.M. Appl. No. 20191 of 2010 and Mat. Appeal No. 704 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: T.G. Rajendran, Adv. and For Respondents: No Appearance |
| Judges | R. Basant and M.L. Joseph Francis, JJ. |
| Issue | Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act - Section 2; Civil Procedure Code (CPC) - Order 9, Rule 13 |
| Judgement Date | September 13, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
R. Basant, J., (At Ernakulam)
-
This petition is to condone the delay of 1074 days in filing a matrimonial appeal. The appeal in turn is directed against an order directing dissolution of marriage of the petitioner/appellant with the respondent herein under the provisions of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act on an application filed by the respondent herein.
-
Marriage is admitted. There is a delay of 1074 days. The petitioner/appellant is admittedly remarried. Called upon to explain the inordinate delay of 1074 days, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the delay of 1074 days occurred as the appellant was abroad and he was not aware of the proceedings before the Family Court. The impugned order shows that the respondent was served and he was set exparte. No application has been filed to set aside the exparte order.
-
We are not satisfied that sufficient reasons have been shown to justify the long and inordinate delay of 1074 days in filing the appeal. The plea that the appellant was not aware of the proceedings ought to have been raised in an application to set aside the exparte order under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. No such application has admittedly been filed. We do not find sufficient reasons to condone the long delay of 1074 days. In our anxiety to ensure that the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay does not result in any miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned Counsel for the appellant to explain the grounds on which the appellant wants to assail the impugned order. Except that he was wrongly set exparte by the Family Court, no other contentions are raised on merits.
-
Before the court below, there...
To continue reading
Request your trial