Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. AJITHKUMAR
ASWATHI R. PILLAI D/O RAJAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
ARAVIND K. UNNITHAN S/O KRISHNAN UNNITHAN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. The appellant is the respondent-wife in O.P. (HMA) No. 1087 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, which was one filed by the respondent herein-husband, seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. In that original petition, the appellant was set ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was also passed on 07.02.2020. Seeking an order to set aside that ex-parte decree, the appellant filed R.P. No. 8 of 2021 (I.A. No. 2 of 2021) on 23.12.2021, which was accompanied by I.A. No. 1 of 2021 for condonation of delay of 654 days. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter, opposing the reliefs sought for in those petitions. On the side of the appellant, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Ext.A1 was marked. On the side of the respondent, RW-1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.
2. After considering the rival contentions, the Family Court by the order dated 19.01.2023 dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 on the ground that the appellant has willfully abstained from contesting the original petition for dissolution of marriage for a long period of 2 years. As an afterthought, the appellant filed the petition to set aside the ex-parte decr
Under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, court has to find out whether erring party has made out sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree.
Any application filed under Order XLI, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of delay, when the delay has occurred only because there was misplacing of files by the counsel, the appl....
In considering applications for condonation of delay, courts must assess whether sufficient cause has been demonstrated based on events leading to the delay.
The court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay in appeals, especially when the delay is short and sufficient cause is shown.
Inordinate 168-day delay in matrimonial appeal not condoned; misconception of limitation period and bicycle injury deemed insufficient cause due to negligence, lack of diligence and bona fides.
Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a leg....
The court emphasized that sufficient cause for condoning delay should be evaluated liberally in matrimonial cases, and prior suits do not preclude granting relief due to evolving questions.
Inordinate 211-day delay in divorce appeal not condoned; illness, financial hardship and distant work held insufficient cause lacking diligence and bona fides, despite knowledge of judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
