High Court Kerala High Court

Veena @ Jaseena vs Vinu P.R. on 6 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Veena @ Jaseena vs Vinu P.R. on 6 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11515 of 2010(R)


1. VEENA @ JASEENA, AGED 31 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VINU P.R., S/O RAJENDRAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.LEKHA SURESH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :06/04/2010

 O R D E R
          K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
        ------------------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) No.11515 of 2010-R
           ----------------------------------------------
            Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

K.M.Joseph, J.

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is an order

by which the applications filed by the respondent to set aside

the exparte decree and to condone the delay in filing the same

has been allowed by the Family Court, Ernakulam. It is

stated that the impugned order is illegal and perverse. It is

the case of the petitioner that the Court below seriously erred

in allowing the applications. It is stated that the respondent

was represented by lawyer and was given ample opportunity

to contest the case. What is more important is that the

Family Court itself held that there is wilful laches on the part of

the respondent in prosecuting the O.P and that sufficient

opportunity was given to him to substantiate his contentions.

However, the Family Court found it fit to condone the delay

and to set aside the exparte decree on payment of cost.

2. We must remind ourselves that we are dealing

with the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution. The

WPC 11515/2010 -2-

substance of the matter is that the Family Court has

exercised discretion to condone the delay and to set aside the

exparte decree. Probably we may have taken a different view

if we are exercising the power of the Family Court. To

substitute our view for that of the Court is part of the

appellate jurisdiction. Taking note of the limits under Article

227 and also taking note of the need for an adjudicated

decision, we decline jurisdiction. At the same time, we direct

the Family Court to take up O.P.No.1465/2007 and dispose of

the same within a period of six months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.

MS