Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
James Joseph vs Tigi James on 20 December, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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as withdrawn making it clear that such dismissal as withdrawn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the Matrimonial Appeal are hence dismissed as withdrawn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withdrawn will not in any way affect the rights of the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/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.104 seconds.