PADMANABHA PANICKER Vs. CHANDRAMATHI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the court below allowing the application of the respondent counter petitioner to set aside an order of dissolution of marriage passed ex parte against her.

(2.) Two points were raised before us, first that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the only remedy available to her is by way of appeal against the order of dissolution to the High Court. Reliance was placed upon sub-s.4 of S.7 of the Travancore Nair Act, II of 1100, which provides:

(3.) The second point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Munsiff is perverse. The summons to the respondent purports to have been served by peon Gopala Pillai examined as DW 1. The respondents version in the court below which was accepted by that court is that Gopala Pillai had nothing to do with the summons in the matter of its service but that one peon Rama Panicker manoeuvred and brought about a false service with two attesting witnesses. Both the attestors were examined. One of them does not admit his signature in the attestation which consisted of letters in English which language is altogether unknown to him. The other attestor swore that he happened to effect the attestation in the house of the said Rama Panicker and at his instance. The version of these two witnesses was accepted by the court below as it was probabilised by the evidence of Gopala Pillai who created the impression upon the court below that he had not anything to do with the service of the summons. We are not able to find that the conclusion reached by the court below is otherwise than correct. It cannot, therefore, be characterised as wrong, much less as perverse.