Devan Ramachandran, J.

Even though there are various assertions, averments and allegations made and impelled by the petitioner against the impugned order of the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara - which is produced as Ext.P8, we may be spared of writing a detailed judgment for the singular reason, that the parties appear to be in consensus.

2. Compendiously, the respondent obtained an ex partie decree of divorce against the petitioners in O.P(HMA).No.1165/2023, and she, thereupon, filed R.P.No.83/2024, without causing any delay; and obtained an order in it on 11.12.2024, whereby, the aforesaid ex parte decree was set aside, however, on condition that they will remit Rs.2,500/- as costs.

3. The petitioner, however, concedes that she could not pay the above said costs within the time frame granted; and consequently, that the Restoration Petition came to be dismissed.

4. The petitioner, thereupon filed I.A.No.5/2025 in R.P.No.83/2024, seeking that the time frame for remitting costs be extended; but this has been dismissed through the impugned order.

5. Sri.G.P.Shinod - appearing for the petitioner, explained that his client could not pay the costs in time only because the Counsel engaged by her faced certain unavoidable and extenuating circumstances; and thereafter, even though another Counsel was engaged, he could not represent the matter before the learned Court.

6. Sri.T.Madhu - appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is only to harass his client because, he had, during the interregnum when all these proceedings were happening, married his present wife on 16.09.2024. He explained that his client was not aware of the order in R.P.No.83/2024, which is manifest from the fact that the summons issued to him had been returned without being signed, since he is serving in the Indian Army and stationed elsewhere. He contended that the service of notice was finally concluded by the learned Family Court by affixture, which again, put his client in prejudice because, he had no occasion to return home to see the summons so affixed. He argued that, therefore, even if this Court is inclined to grant any latitude to the petitioner, it may be only to the effect that the Restoration Petition, namely R.P.No.83/2024, is directed to be heard again dehors the earlier order issued by the learned Family Court on 11.12.2024. He explained that, if this Court is inclined to do so, then his client will get the opportunity of contesting the Restoration Petition itself on its merits, which is now vitally important because he had, as earlier submitted, married his present wife on 16.09.2024, after having waited more than eight months after the ex parte decree was issued by the learned Family Court on 24.01.2024.

7. Sri.G.P.Shinod - appearing for the petitioner, agreed to the afore suggestion, saying that his client does not want to obtain any undue advantage; but is only interested in pursuing her legitimate remedies. He, nevertheless, contested the argument of Sri.T.Madhu, that the summons in the Restoration Petition had not been properly served on the respondent; but conceded that, solely for the purpose of obtaining a quietus to the controversy and to ensure that both sides obtain substantial justice, his client is willing to forgo the order that has been received in the Restoration Petition and to have the said petition heard on its merits afresh. He prayed that, in such circumstances, this Court may fix the date on which the parties can appear so that the matter can move on without any delay.

8. We are without doubt that the afore suggestion of learned Counsel for the parties is the best available to their