Kerala High Court
Benny Varghese Aged 47 Years vs Sibi P.Kuruvila on 30 December, 2011
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY,THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/1ST MAGHA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 541 of 2013 ()
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 255/2006 of FAMILYCOURT,ERNAKULAM
DATED 30-12-2011
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:
----------------------------------------------
BENNY VARGHESE AGED 47 YEARS
KIYALIL HOUSE, MANEEDU.P.O., PIRAVOM (VIA)
ERNAKULAM. 686 726.
BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------------------------
SIBI P.KURUVILA, AGED 37 YEARS
PALUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOKKOPPILLY.P.O.
MATTAKUZHI (KARA), PUTHANKURIZH.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SAJEEV
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.
========================
C.M.Appln.No.1919/2013
&
Mat. Appeal No. 541 of 2013
=======================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2014
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
Respondent herein is the divorced wife of the appellant. She filed OP No.255/2006 before the Family Court, Ernakulam for recovery of the value of gold and for a direction to return the title deeds of her property from the appellant.
2. Appellant contested the matter himself. The respondent adduced evidence of herself and her witnesses. Appellant examined himself as RW1. Subsequently, for hearing, he remained absent. The Family Court finally by its judgment dated 30th of December, 2011 decreed the OP partially. Coming to know of the judgment of the Family Court, the appellant filed IA No. 380/11 before the Family Court, Ernakulam praying to set aside the ex parte decree. At that stage, proceedings were transferred to the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, which re- numbered the case as IA No.38/12. It is stated that the Family Court dismissed the IA on 3/9/12 and the appellant came to know C.M.Appln.No.1919/2013 & Mat.Appeal No.541/13 : 2 :
of the order only on 19/2/13. Thereafter, he has filed this appeal on 12/8/13 along with the application praying to condone delay of 546 days in filing the appeal.
3. The main reasons stated by the appellant to justify his request to condone the delay are the above facts and that he says that immediately on coming to know of all these, he has filed the appeal.
4. The main grievance of the appellant is regarding the direction of the Court to return the title deeds of the two properties to the respondent. We are now informed that both these properties stand in the name of the respondent and that the appellant has not approached the Family Court with any petition for declaration of his title and ownership of the property. This means that, as on date, the title of the properties vests with the respondent and it is that title deeds which are ordered to be returned to her.
5. As far as the delay of 546 days is concerned, in our view, the misconceived remedies pursued by the appellant by filing IA No.38/12 is no reason to condone such inordinate delay. C.M.Appln.No.1919/2013 & Mat.Appeal No.541/13 : 3 :
Even otherwise, the IA itself was dismissed on 3/9/12 and the appeal was filed by the appellant only on 12/8/13. His vague claim that he is a driver of a national permit lorry and was out of station during the entire period is not acceptable. We are not satisfied that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.
For that reason C.M.Appln.No.1919/13 is dismissed and consequently, the appeal also is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE