An appeal may be dismissed for default if the appellant fails to appear or fulfill procedural requirements.

JUDGMENT

Nisha Banu, J.

This appeal is filed seeking to set aside the judgment dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad, in O.P.No.1231 of 2011 filed by the petitioners, who is the respondents herein, for claiming gold and money from the appellant herein, who is the respondent in the original petition. The appellant had married the 1^st respondent on

20.08.2007 and 2^nd respondent born in the wedlock.

2. The brief facts of the case as narrated by the appellant is that the appellant is the husband and the respondent is the wife. O.P.No.1231 of 2011 was filed by the wife/1^st respondent claiming gold and money from the appellant/husband.

3. The case of the 1^st respondent/wife in brief is that the appellant/husband married the 1^st respondent on 20.08.2007 and during the time of marriage, the 1^st respondent/wife’s parents gave 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Rs.2,00,000/- by way of pocket money to the appellant/husband and according to the 1^st respondent/wife, the appellant was cruel to her and utilised the money given to her at the time of marriage. It is alleged that the appellant/husband demanded more money and therefore, the 1^st respondent/wife left the matrimonial home on 27.10.2009 and since the 1^st respondent/wife was not employed, she claimed a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- for herself and Rs.4,000/- for her child. It is also stated that the appellant had filed counter affidavit denying the contentions by the 1^st respondent/wife and he also stated that the wife was cruel to himself and his parents. Therefore, the appellant filed O.P.No.868 of 2011 for divorce and that was tried along with O.P.No.1231 of 2011 filed by his wife. According to the appellant, the appellant himself was examined as PW1. DW1 to DW3 were deposed on the side of the present respondents and on going through the evidence and documents, the Family Court found that the appellant is entitled for a decree of divorce and accordingly, O.P.No.868 of 2011 filed by the present appellant was allowed, but according to him, on a perverse appreciation of the evidence available, O.P.No.1231 of 2011 was allowed and a favourable order was passed on behalf of the 1^st respondent allowing to recover 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value amounting to Rs.5,50,000/- from the appellant. According to the appellant, the order passed by the Family Court is per se illegal and therefore, challenging the same, he came forward filing the present appeal.

4. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Also it is noticed from the records that till date, the appellant has not taken steps to complete service of notice on the respondents. Since the matter is of the year 2014, we are not inclined to retain this appeal any further.

5. In view of the above observation, the appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.