ABDUL RAHIM Vs. NAZEEMA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.P. No.42/2013 on the files of the Family Court, Kollam is the appellant in this appeal filed challenging a common order passed by that court in I.A. Nos.847/2018848/2018, dated 19-07-2018. Through the order impugned, an exparte decree obtained by the appellant was set aside on the basis of applications filed by the respondent, after condoning the delay occurred in filing the application, subject to awarding of cost.

(2.) The appellant herein had instituted O.P. No.42/2018 seeking realization of money from the respondent, who is his former wife. The respondent was declared ex-parte in the said case on 06-06-2017. Thereafter the case was decreed ex-parte on 12-06-2017, based on proof affidavit filed by the appellant and on the marking of Ext.A1 document. The respondent herein filed I.A. Nos.847/2018848/2018 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree after condoning the delay of 226 days occurred in filing the said application. The appellant filed detailed objections to those interim applications. Through the order impugned herein, those interim applications were allowed by the court below, subject to condition of the respondent paying cost of Rs. 2,000.00 each in both the applications to the appellant, within a period of one month. The appellant is challenging the said order on various grounds.

(3.) One of the main contention raised is that an earlier application filed by the respondent seeking to set aside the ex-parte order passed on 06-06-2017, I.A. No.1088/2017, was dismissed by the Family Court for default of the respondent. It is contended that the respondent was not entitled to file fresh applications seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, without challenging the dismissal of the said application. It is further contended that the Family Court has not properly adjudicated the interim applications on its merits. It is pointed out that, the observations of the Family Court are to the effect that the respondent had failed to adduce evidence in support of the application. Hence the I.As ought not have been allowed. It is also contended that the court below had not recorded any satisfaction that there were reasonable and genuine causes for the nonappearance of the respondent before the court on the day on which the original petition was posted for taking evidence, or on the subsequent dates till the decree was passed. According to the appellant, having found otherwise, the court below ought not have allowed the interim applications on condition of payment of cost.