Venugopalan Nair vs Praveena

K.T. Sankaran, J.—The respondent, who is the daughter of the appellant filed O.P. No. 638 of 2007 before the Family Court, Palakkad against the petitioner, claiming her marriage expenses. She claimed Rs. 1,50,000/-. During the pendency of the Original Petition before the Family Court, her marriage took place. The Family Court partly decreed the Original Petition as per judgment and decree dated 28th November, 2008. As against the claim for Rs. 1.5 lakhs, the Family Court granted a decree for Rs. 1,00,000/-. After a lapse of 890 days from the date of the decree, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1639 of 2011 to set aside the ex parte decree. I.A. No. 1638 of 2011 was filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 890 days in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The Family Court considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed the applications, which are under challenge in this Matrimonial Appeal.

The appellant contended that he was working in Chennai and he was not served with notice. Only substituted service was effected. He came to know about the decree only later. He stated that he was on pilgrimage and therefore, he could not appear before court. He also stated that he was not residing in the address shown in the Original Petition.

The court below noticed that M.C. No. 71 of 2003 was filed by the wife of the petitioner(appellant) claiming maintenance and only after a period of eight years, he started paying the maintenance amount. The court below thought that there is no ground to condone the delay of 890 days. The court below also noticed that service on the respondent was completed in the Original Petition only after one year of the filing of the same. Notice was not served on the appellant on the ground that he left the place. Finally, substituted service was ordered and it was effected. The court below also stated in the order that the petitioner(appellant) did not state as to when he came to know of the decree passed by the court below.

All the relevant facts and circumstances were considered by the court below and the court below took the view that there are no grounds to condone the delay. We do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. The Mat. Appeal is devoid of any merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has only a fractional right in the 11 cents of land and that he may be granted a reasonable time to pay off the decree debt. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that three months'' time can be granted to the appellant to pay off the decree debt in O.P. No. 638 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. Accordingly, there will be a direction that the decree in O.P. No. 638 of 2007 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad shall not be executed for a period of three months, in order to enable the appellant to discharge the decree debt.