Madras High Court
E.Raghu vs R.Soniya on 22 January, 2020
Author: M.M.Sundresh
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, Krishnan Ramasamy
C.M.A.No. 127 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 22.01.2020
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
C.M.A.No. 127 of 2020
and C.M.P.No.860 of 2020
E.Raghu .. Appellant
vs.
R.Soniya .. Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against
the fair and decretal order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the IV
Additional Family Court, Chennai in I.A.No.3 of 2019 in O.P.No.1760 of
2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Arunkumar
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The appellant filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty in O.P.No.1760 of 2018. On 09.07.2018, the respondent did not appear before the Family Court and hence an exparte decree was 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No. 127 of 2020 passed. Thereafter, she filed an application seeking to condone the delay of 257 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree granted. This application filed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 has been ordered after noting the fact that the appellant has been duly served inasmuch as the track consignment of the Postal Department would indicate the delivery confirmed. Thus, after taking note of the postal track consignment and postal receipt, service was treated as proper and the petition was ordered accordingly.
2.Thereafter, the appellant filed an application to set aside the said order on the premise that he has been served. The Family Court drew the presumption in favour of the respondent and accordingly dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no proof of actual service and the delay has not been properly explained. Thus, the order of the Family Court requires interference.
4.We find no reason to interfere with the order passed. The Family Court rightly placed reliance upon the presumption. There is no 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No. 127 of 2020 dispute with respect to the indication of the Postal Department on the track consignment to the effect that delivery has been confirmed. The postal receipt has also been filed along with the affidavit of service. After all, the respondent wants an opportunity to contest the matter on merit and reasons have also been assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay.
5.In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the Family Court has rightly dismissed the application filed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
6.However, taking into consideration the fact that O.P.No.1760 of 2018 is pending for more than two years, we direct the The IV Additional Principal Judge, IV Additional Family Court, Chennai to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(M.M.S.J.,) (K.R.J.,) 22.01.2020 Index:Yes/No mmi 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in C.M.A.No. 127 of 2020 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
mmi To The IV Additional Principal Judge, IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.
C.M.A.No. 127 of 2020
22.01.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in