Recently, the Kerala High Court emphasised the importance of promptly challenging Family Court orders in matrimonial disputes, observing that delays in seeking to set aside divorce decrees can have far-reaching consequences once parties alter their marital status. The Court was dealing with a dispute over an ex parte divorce decree where the wife claimed that she had never received notice of the proceedings. The case brought into focus a crucial question frequently arising in matrimonial litigation: whether a long delay in approaching the court can be condoned when the opposite party may have already reorganised his or her life based on the finality of the decree.
The controversy stemmed from a challenge to the dismissal of applications seeking condonation of a 160-day delay and setting aside an ex parte divorce decree passed by the Family Court. The wife maintained that she had no knowledge of the divorce proceedings as the summons issued through registered post had never reached her. She alleged that someone else had impersonated her and received the postal articles and that the signatures appearing on the acknowledgment cards were forged.
Although the Family Court had initially accepted her explanation, the matter later returned for a fresh consideration of the issue after directions were issued to examine the evidence relating to service of notice. Following an evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court concluded that notice had in fact been duly served and rejected her applications, prompting the present appeal.
The Appellant argued that the ex parte decree had been passed without her knowledge and that the delay deserved to be condoned since she was unaware of the proceedings. On the other hand, the Respondent relied on the testimony of postal authorities, postal delivery records containing Aadhaar details and a comparison of signatures appearing on the acknowledgment cards with admitted signatures available on other records. It was argued that the evidence clearly established personal service of notice and that the Family Court had rightly rejected the plea of non-service.
The Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's findings. The Bench noted that the Postmaster had confirmed the similarity of signatures appearing in the relevant records, while the Postman had specifically deposed that he personally served the notices after verifying the recipient's identity through her identity card. The Court observed that the Family Court had appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and that there was overwhelming material establishing service of notice.
The Bench remarked, “In matrimonial disputes especially in the matters relating to dissolution of marriage, delay in challenging the order of the Family Court is fatal as there are chances of parties altering their status after the appeal period.” The Court further cautioned that, “Great care and caution has to be exercised while condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decrees after the appeal period as it has the effect of affecting the rights of third parties.” Noting that the Respondent had already contracted another marriage after the appeal period, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the orders under challenge.
Consequently, the matrimonial appeal was dismissed.
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg