Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Kannur, which allowed Crl.M.P.No.251/2025 and CMP.No.28/2025 in M.C.No.488/2023, but on terms that he shall remit Rs.1,52,000/-.

2. Sri.V.S.Babu Gireesan – learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was constrained to file Crl.M.P.No.251/2025 in M.C.No.488/2023 because, the latter case had been decreed against him ex parte; and that he, therefore, also filed CMP.No.28/2025 to condone the delay of 226 days in filing the former application. He explained that his client was unaware of the order in M.C.No.488/2023 since his learned Counsel did not inform him, nor was the “updates of the status” of the case made known to him; and that he came to be aware of the order much later, thus causing the delay. He argued that, when his client has an arguable case on merits, the learned Court ought not to have mulcted him with terms, as has been done.

3. In response, the learned Counsel for the respondents – Sri.C.Muralikrishnan, submitted that this is not a case where the facts are as innocuous as has been presented. He pointed out that, as has been recorded in Ext.P3 order itself, the petitio