SAJITHKUMAR G. Vs. AMBILI V.L.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, Nedumangad in O.P.No.1257/2012 filed by the respondent who is the wife of the appellant. The impugned judgment and decree are passed after setting the appellant ex parte. Under the impugned decree it is declared that the immovable property, which was purchased as per document No.2976 of Sub Registry Office, Vellanadu, (standing in the name of the appellant and respondent jointly) belongs to the respondent herein. Under the impugned judgment the appellant was directed to return 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments which was entrusted with him at the time of the marriage or in the alternative to pay Rs.4,00,000.00 as the monetary value of the gold ornaments. There is a further direction directing the appellant to pay Rs.2,00,000.00, which was given at the time of marriage by her parents, to the respondent.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not in India at the time when the notice was served on him by affixture. However, through his brother and power of attorney holder, Anilkumar, he engaged an advocate at Nedumangad to defend the O.P. Unfortunately, the advocate was not present when the case was called by the Family Court and the impugned judgment was passed setting ex parte by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed an application for setting aside ex parte decree. That application, which was filed by the appellant's counsel, was rejected on the reason that the application is filed not by the appellant but by the appellant's counsel. Learned counsel for the appellant requested that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the appellant be permitted to contest the O.P. on merits.

(3.) THE lower court records reveal that the claim of the appellant that he had given power of attorney to his brother Anilkumar to defend O.P.No.1257/2012 and another O.P. (O.P.No.1258/2012), which was filed by the respondent herself seeking appointment of respondent as a guardian for the person and property of the minor. Obviously, the appellant became obliged to give a power of attorney to his brother, as the appellant was at the relevant time in Dubai in connection with his employment there. The records reveal that I.A. No.1822/2012 was filed on the day the appellant was set ex parte for getting that order set aside by one Advocate K.Satheesh Kumar. The affidavit in support of the above I.A. was sworn to by Sri. K. Satheesh Kumar. According to Mr.Satheesh Kumar, he was engaged before the Lok Adalath organized by the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Nedumangad at the time when the case was called and hence, he could not make proper representation. The above I.A. was dismissed by the Family Court on the reason that notwithstanding the affidavit filed by him Advocate Satheesh Kumar relinquishing his vakalalth.