AFSAL HUSSAIN Vs. RUKSEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.247/2015 filed by the respondent - his divorced wife, seeking return of certain gold ornaments and sums of money.

(2.) It is virtually uncontested that the above said Original Petition had been decreed ex parte, at least thrice before the last of it being through Ext.P2 order. On each of the earlier occasions, the ex parte decree had been set aside and this was the same with respect to Ext.P2 also, which, the petitioner achieved through Ext.P6 order in I.A.No.1527/2019. Through the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.11,50,000.00, as a condition to have Ext.P2 decree set aside; along with Rs.1,500.00 as ordered in Ext.P5 order in I.A.No.1526/2019 - which was imposed as a condition to condone the delay of about 58 days in filing the application to have the decree set aside.

(3.) It is expressly conceded that the petitioner did not comply with any of the afore directions; and consequently, that the learned Family Court, Palakkad, issued Ext.P7 order, dismissing I.A.No.1526/2019.