Indu S vs Thomas @ Manoj E.J

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                               &
         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
 THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944
                MAT.APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2022
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.197/2018 OF FAMILY
                     COURT, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/S:

         INDU S., AGED 33 YEARS,
         D/O. P. G. SASIDHARAN,
         LAL BHAVAN, EDAYANNUR P.O.,
         KANNUR DISTRICT-670 595.
         BY ADVS.
         P.SANJAY
         A.PARVATHI MENON
         BIJU MEENATTOOR
         KIRAN NARAYANAN
         PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
         P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
         PRASOON SUNNY
         RAHUL RAJ P.
         AMRUTHA M. NAIR


RESPONDENT/S:

         THOMAS @ MANOJ E.J.,
         AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH,
         ELAVANKGOD HOUSE, KALLANCHIRA,
         P.O. BALAL, VELLARIKKUNDU TALUK,
         KASARAGOD DISTRICT-670 591.
         BY ADVS.
         S.K.BALACHANDRAN
         T.P.GEORGE
         K.M.BIJU
         N.D.DEEPA


THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Mat.Appeal No.534/2022               2




                                JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This matter has come up before us with an application to condone the delay of 1423 days in filing the appeal. The decree impugned is a compromise decree. According to the appellant, the decree was obtained by fraud and is not binding. The decree entered, based on compromise cannot be challenged in the appeal, the remedy is to recall the judgment before the court, which passed the decree. That apart, we also find there were previous proceedings between the parties and the delay now attributed, at any stretch, cannot be condoned as the appellant had knowledge of the proceedings relating to the decree. We have no option but to dismiss the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly, C.M.Appl.No.1/2022 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

However, this will not stand in the way of the appellant moving the Family Court for modification of the decree, if the appellant is of the view that the child's welfare will have to be protected by varying the terms and Mat.Appeal No.534/2022 3 conditions in the compromise or to recall the decree if the appellant is of the view that it was obtained by fraud.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ln