1. Suit for matrimonial dissolution mediated into a compromise decree; subsequent appeal filed after significant delay alleging fraud and forgery of documents. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 75057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Preeta A.K., JJ
Maya – Appellant
Versus
Sivakumari – Respondent
MAT.APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2022
Important Points
Condonation of delay cannot be granted based on allegations of fraud in a compromise decree when the trial court has specifically recorded the physical presence of the parties at the time of settlement.
Subject
Family Law - Matrimonial Appeal
Headnote
(A) Condonation of Delay - Allegation of Fraud - When the trial court records the physical presence of both parties and the settlement of the matter, a claim that the decree was obtained by fraud or behind the back of the party is unsustainable and cannot be a ground for condoning an inordinate delay. (Para 2)
Issues: Whether the delay of 2,592 days in filing the matrimonial appeal should be condoned on the grounds of fraud and lack of knowledge of the compromise decree.
Issues: Whether the delay of 2,592 days in filing the matrimonial appeal should be condoned on the grounds of fraud and lack of knowledge of the compromise decree.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Liju M.P.
For the Respondents: M.R. Sarin, S. Greeshma Shanmukhan
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Liju M.P.
For the Respondents: M.R. Sarin, S. Greeshma Shanmukhan
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleges unauthorized use of blank papers for compromise and forgery of court documents; respondent asserts valid mediation attendance and informed consent to settlement. (Para 1 )
3. The court recorded the presence of both parties at the settlement, refuting the appellant's claim that the decree was finalized behind his back. (Para 2 )
4. A court record stating the presence of parties during a compromise agreement negates an allegation of fraud regarding the absence of the party during proceedings. (Para 2 )
5. C.M. Application to condone delay dismissed; consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (Para 2 )
6. Does a court record of the parties' presence during a compromise decree defeat an allegation of fraud regarding unauthorized legal proceedings?
Yes. When the court records that both parties were present and the matter was settled, the appellant cannot substantiate a claim that proceedings were finalized behind their back, thereby failing the requirement to condone a significant delay by demonstrating valid cause. (Para 2 )
J U D G M E N T
PREETA A.K., J.
This Mat. Appeal is preferred by the appellant/husband, who was the respondent in O.P.No.327 of 2015 on the files of Family Court, Nadumangad. The judgment impugned is a compromise decree. Challenge is foisted primarily on the ground that the appellant had no knowledge of the compromise petition filed and that blank papers signed and handed over to the lawyer, have been utilized for filing the compromise petition. It is contended that the appellant came to know of the decree only when execution proceedings were initiated and notice was served on him. Thereupon, he took steps to prefer this Mat. Appeal along with a petition to condone delay of 2,592 days. In the affidavit filed along with C.M.Application No.1 of 2022, the appellant has stated as follows:
“3. It is submitted that, as the impugned decree was obtained by fraud, same is liable to be set aside. I had not executed any compromise as alleged and not signed in any such documents. The blank signed papers obtained from me fraudulently and misrepresentation of facts, are misused to forge such a compromise. I never appeared before the Family Court, Nedumangad in the above original petition and had not executed vakalath and not engaged any counsel to appear on my behalf also.
My signature is forged and created a vakalath in my name also.
4. It is submitted that I was totally unaware about passing of impugned judgment and decree. Respondent left the matrimonial relationship with me and the children within few weeks after the reconciliation meetings. As my children were not at all interested to pursue the matter further, I left the issues then and there. After a long laps of more than six years, in 2021, the respondent filed the execution petition and only when I received Ann-2 notice in the execution petition during the 3rd week of February, 2022, I come to know about such proceedings. Immediately I made enquiries and then came to know about the impugned decree. As such, copy application was filed on 21.03.22 for certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree. Stamps were called on 26.03.22 and same was produced on 31.03.22. Certified copy was delivered on 04.04.22 Immediately I made arrangements to file the above appeal. But, meantime there occurred a delay of 2592 days in filing the above appeal. Considering the fraud committed on me in obtaining the decree, the above delay is only to be condoned on the ground of equity and natural justice and my appeal may have to be considered on its merits as otherwise I will be put to irreparable hardship.”
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the appellant, who had filed vakalath through his lawyer, Adv.G.Anilkumar, had attended the mediation talks, signed the compromise petition after fully understanding the terms of the compromise and had thereafter failed to comply with the terms of the compromise entered into. It was under such circumstances, the execution petition was filed.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent also invited our attention to the judgment impugned, wherein the Family Court has recorded that, “Both parties present. Matter settled”. Therefore, we do not find any basis for the reasons stated by the appellant for condoning the delay. The fact that court has recorded the presence of both the parties, would strike at the root of the case of the appellant that the proceedings were finalized behind his back and thus the delay in filing the Mat.Appeal. We, therefore, find no reason to condone the delay in filing the Mat. Appeal.
In the result, C.M.Application No.1 of 2022 is dismissed.
Accordingly, Mat. Appeal also stands dismissed.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
