The court emphasizes that in matrimonial matters involving the dissolution of marriage, procedural requirements regarding the condonation of delay should be interpreted liberally to ensure that parties are given an opportunity to contest the case on its merits when sufficient cause is shown.

JUDGMENT PREETA A.K., J.

The appellants herein are the respondents in O.P.(MMA)

No.917 of 2023 of the Family Court, Alappuzha. The said Original Petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking dissolution of marriage, return of money and compensation against the appellants.

2. In the proceedings before the Family Court, the respondent had entered appearance and the matter was referred for mediation. However, the mediation was not fruitful. Thereafter, even though the case was posted for filing of objections, the appellants failed to file objections, remained absent and was later set ex-parte. The Family Court proceeded to take ex parte evidence. Based on the evidence adduced by the respondent-wife, the Original Petition was allowed, dissolving the marriage between the 1^st appellant and the respondent and the appellants were directed to return the money and gold ornaments as claimed in the Original Petition.

3. The appellants, on coming to know of the ex parte decree, filed R.P.No.73 of 2024 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree along with I.A.No.2 of 2024 seeking to condone the delay of 39 days in filing the application for setting aside the decree. The said application was stoutly opposed by the respondent. The reason stated in the affidavit for setting aside the decree was that the 1^st appellant, who is the only son of the 3^rd appellant, was nursing his father, who had developed complications on account of being diabetic and as such could not appear before the Court on the posting dates assigned. Having considered the application, the court below held that the appellants had failed to explain to the satisfaction of the Court that they were prevented by sufficient cause from making an application within the time prescribed and hence, application seeking condonation of delay of 39 days was dismissed. Consequently, the R.P. was also dismissed. It is against this order that the present appeal is filed.

4. Heard both sides.

5. It is seen from records that the delay in filing the petition is of 39 days and it has been specifically stated in Annexures A3 and A4 that the appellants failure to appear before the Court, was solely on account of the fact that the 1^st appellant's father, who is the 3^rd appellant herein, had developed complications on account of diabetics and that the 1^st appellant was nursing his father. It is true that petitions to condone the delay and for setting aside an ex parte decree require sufficient reason and is not to be treated lightly. However, in this case, the ex parte decree, which has been granted, is for dissolution of marriage between the 1^st appellant and the respondent upholding the contentions of cruelty by the 1^st appellant to the respondent.

6. Taking into consideration the serious consequences of an ex parte decree in the matter of dissolution of marriage and also of the fact that the delay was only of 39 days in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decree, it can be seen that the appellants were serious in contesting the matter and were prevented by sufficient cause for their absence before the trial court. In that view of the matter, we feel that the appellants should be provided with an opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

In the result, we set aside Annexure A5 order dated

07/01/2026 and remit the matter to Family Court, Alappuzha, to reconsider R.P.No.73 of 2024 in O.P.(MMA) No.917 of 2023 in the light of the observations made above.

All interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.