IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mat.Appeal.No. 1013 of 2010()
1. JAMES JOSEPH, 3-C,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TIGI JAMES, KALARICKAL HOUSE,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.WILSON URMESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :20/12/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
***********************
Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2010
*****************************
Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010
ORDER/JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The appellant has come before this Court to challenge the
impugned decree which obliges him to return money and
ornaments to the respondent/his wife.
2. The impugned order is an exparte order. The appeal
is filed along with a petition to condone the long delay of 552
days in fling the appeal.
3. The matter was discussed at the Bar. The learned
counsel for the appellant was called upon to explain how the
challenge on merits can be sustained. The learned counsel for
the petitioner/appellant was also requested to explain why no
petition has been filed to get the exparte order set aside.
4. After discussions at the Bar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner/appellant only submits that these application for
condonation of delay and the Mat.Appeal may now be dismissed
as withdrawn making it clear that such dismissal as withdrawn
will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner/appellant to
Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2010 2
move the Family Court to get the exparte order set aside in
accordance with law.
5. We accept the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioner/appellant. The petition for condonation of delay and
the Matrimonial Appeal are hence dismissed as withdrawn
making it clear that the dismissal of the petition for condonation
of delay and the rejection of the Matrimonial Appeal as
withdrawn will not in any way affect the rights of the
petitioner/appellant to move the Family Court to get the exparte
order passed against him set aside in accordance with law.
6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned
counsel for the petitioner/appellant forthwith.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)
rtr/
Mat.Appeal No.1013 of 2010 3
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
**********************
Unnumbered Mat.Appeal of 2010
*********************
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010
ORDER
BASANT, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel
prays for time to do further research. We request Dr.Sebastian
Champappilly (S.276) to render assistance as Amicus Curiae on
the question as to whether the stipulation of the period of 30
days under Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act or the general
stipulation under Article 116(a) of the Limitation Act would
prevail in the light of the observations in Savitri Pandey v.
Prem Chandra Pandey [(2002) 2 SCC 73].
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/