Judicial orders must be reasoned and deliberate; failure to provide rationale can lead to reconsideration.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the learned Family Court, Neyyattinkara, on various grounds, but primarily that it has been issued without proper application of mind and in a rather mechanical fashion – evident from the alleged lack of reasoning therein.

2. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client moved IA No.2/2025, invoking the provisions of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to set aside the ex parte decree; to which the respondent filed his objections. He pointed out that, however, the learned Family Court has dismissed the application, merely saying that it has been filed “without any bona fide” (sic); and that his client was “continuously absent” (sic); thus constraining his client to approach this Court.

3. Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, thereafter, submitted that what is stated in Ext.P8 - namely that the petitioner was continuously absent - is factually not accurate because, his learned counsel was present every posting date; while his personal appearance was unnecessary when an application of the nature mentioned above was being considered, unless it was ordered.

4. Sri.Kiran Krishna - learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the learned Family Court has recorded accurately in Ext.P8; and that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present at the time it was issued and even before the earlier listed dates. He prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed. He added that the reasons given by the petitioner in the application seeking that the decree be set aside is without any merit and consequently prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

5. We propose to intervene in this case, not because we are affirmatively considering the contentions of the petitioner, but solely since, Ext.P8, as correctly argued by Sri.Latheesh Sebastian, rejects the application, but without citing any reason.

6. We do not know how the learned Family Court found the application to be without any bona fide; further, to record the petitioner being ‘continuously absent’ - which is unclear if even the counsel was not present.

7. We are consequently, left without any other option, but to direct the learned Family Court to reconsider IA No.2/2025; for which, Ext.P8 requires to be set aside.

Resultantly, this Original Petition is allowed and we set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the learned Family Court to reconsider IA No.2/2025, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-