IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 204 of 2007()
1. AMBATTUPARAMBIL ABDULRAHIMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KHAIRUNNISA, D/O KALLINGAL ABDU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.MUJEEB
For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :17/11/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
————————————————–
C.M.Application No. 702 OF 2007
&
Mat.Appeal No.204 OF 2007
—————————————————–
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009
O R D E R /J U D G M E N T
Basant, J.
This petition is to condone the delay of 200 days in filing a
Matrimonial Appeal. The Matrimonial Appeal in turn is directed
against an order dismissing an application filed by the divorced
husband against his divorced wife claiming return of movable and
immovable properties which were purchased in the name of/given
to the wife by the husband during coverture.
2. The application for condonation of delay is opposed
vehemently by the learned counsel for the respondent. The
learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no merit in the
appeal and the right of appeal is being invoked belatedly to vex
and harass the respondent, who has secured divorce from the
appellant/husband.
3. The delay is of 200 days. The delay is enormous and
gross. The reason urged – that there was a communication gap
between the counsel and the appellant, is not found to be
Mat.Appeal No.204/07 -2-
sufficient or inspiring to justify the prayer for condonation of
delay. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the delay
does not deserve to be condoned.
4. In our anxiety to ensure that the rejection of the
prayer for condonation of delay does not result in failure or
miscarriage of justice, we requested the learned counsel for the
appellant to explain the nature of the challenge which he wants
to raise against the impugned order. During coverture,
properties were allegedly purchased in the name of the wife and
were handed over by the husband to the wife. After the divorce,
the husband is staking a claim for return of those properties. The
court below found that there is nothing to come to the conclusion
that the purchase was made exclusively using the funds of the
husband. The court took note of the fact that the wife was
educated and was having an employment. The court found that
at any rate, those properties purchased in the name of the wife,
when the husband and wife were living in happy matrimony are
not liable to be returned by the wife to the husband. We find the
approach made by the court below to be absolutely justified. We
Mat.Appeal No.204/07 -3-
do not find any merit in the challenge raised on merits.
5. To sum up, we do not find any reason to condone the
long and enormous delay of 200 days in filing the appeal. We
are further satisfied that the rejection of the prayer for
condonation of delay does not result in any failure or miscarriage
of justice.
6. In these circumstances, this application for
condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, Mat.Appeal
No.204/07 shall stand rejected as barred by limitation.
R.BASANT, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn