Harpreet Kaur Anand vs Mathew Joseph

Leave granted.

These appeals take exception to the judgment and order dated 11.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Mat Appeal No.998/2018, Mat Appeal No.1021/2018 and O.P.(FC) No.623/2018.

This matter has a chequered history. The first divorce petition (O.P. No.1278/2006) was filed by the respondent-husband (Mathew Joseph) in the year 2006, which was dismissed in the year 2010. Indeed, the respondent filed appeal against that decision i.e., Mat Appeal No.610/2010 before the High Court, which incidentally had been dismissed by the common impugned judgment.

We are not dealing with the merits of that appeal or the correctness of the rejection of the appeal.

In the present appeal(s), we are concerned only with the common impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the other three appeal(s) filed by the respondent challenging the decision of the Family Court at Ernakulam dated 25.09.2018 whereby the Court had rejected four separate applications filed by the respondent essentially for restoration of divorce petition being O.P. No.1583 of 2012 filed by him which had been dismissed for default on 25.05.2017; and for recall of order dated 25.05.2017. These application(s) were filed beyond limitation period.

It appears that the delay was around 365 days in filing these application(s). The Trial Court vide its judgment dated 25.09.2018 considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and was of the considered opinion that the respondent was merely protracting the proceedings for reasons best known to him presumably to cause prejudice to the appellant.

The decision of the Trial Court, therefore, was assailed by the respondent before the High Court by way of afore-mentioned MAT appeals. The High Court, despite noticing the past conduct and trajectory of the proceedings, went on to observe that it was essential to give one more opportunity to the respondent. The High Court in the entire judgment has not chosen to deal with the reasons that had weighed with the Trial Court in rejecting the four applications for recall of order dated 25.05.2017 passed by the Trial Court dismissing O.P. No.1583/2012 on the ground of default and non-prosecution.

The relevant facts which weighed with the Trial Court, in our opinion, are germane and just reasons for rejecting the four applications filed by the respondent before the Trial Court. The High Court ought not to have lightly interfered with the said reasons and in the manner which it had done vide impugned judgment. In other words, the judgment of the High court is perverse and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside and the common order passed by the Family Court dated 25.09.2018 is restored. As a result of which, the four applications filed by the respondent for recall of order dated 25.05.2017 and to restore the O.P. No.1583/2012 stand dismissed.

The respondent shall pay costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) directly in the account of the appellant (Ms. Harpreet Kaur Anand, A/c. No.37457293061, State Bank of Amritsar, IFSC Code :SBIN 0021472) within four weeks from today, failing which the same shall be liable to be recovered by the Collector, Ernakulam as arrears of land revenue. Compliance in that behalf be reported to this Court within six weeks from today.

We also direct that if any other matrimonial proceeding is pending between the parties, the same be decided expeditiously by the concerned Court.

The appeals are allowed in the above terms. All applications are disposed of.

Copy of this order be forwarded to the Collector, Ernakulam, for information and necessary action.