SAKKEER HUSSAIN Vs. SAINABHA V.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no higher principle for the guidance of the Court than the one that no act of Court should harm a litigant. It is the bounden duty of Courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the Court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim: "Actus curiae neminem gravabit" (See Jang Singh v. Brij Lal, AIR 1966 SC 1631).

(2.) The appellant is the respondent in O.P.195 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram filed by his wife and their child for return of gold ornaments to the wife and also for realisation of money towards maintenance. The appellant was set ex parte in O.P.No.195 of 2016 and an order was passed therein on 30.05.2017 directing him to return nine sovereigns of gold ornaments to the wife or to pay her Rs. 1,89,000/- as the value of the gold ornaments. The appellant was also directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month to the wife and at the rate of Rs. 3500/- per month to the child for the past 15 months with interest @6% per anum.

(3.) On 18.11.2017, the appellant filed application as I.A.No.1616 of 2017 for setting aside the ex parte order passed against him and I.A.No.1617 of 2017 for condoning the delay in filing the application I.A.No.1616 of 2017. As per the common order dated 05.04.2018, the Family Court, Malappuram allowed both applications on the condition that the appellant shall pay 20% of the amount claimed in E.P.No.31 of 2017 which was filed for realisation of the amount awarded in O.P.195 of 2016, within 15 days. The operative portion of the order of the Family Court reads as follows: