Kerala High Court
Rajitha C vs Kannappanunni.N on 11 September, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2024:KER:69643
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 664 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2024 IN I.A.NO.1/2024 IN
I.A.NO.2/2024 IN OP NO.502 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT,
OTTAPPALAM ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2023 IN OP
NO.502 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPPALAM
APPELLANT:
RAJITHA C, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O PRAPHULLA
CHANDRAN, CHOTTATHODI HOUSE, KOTHAYUR,
VANIYAMKULAM- PO, OTTAPALAM TALUK,,
PIN - 679522
BY ADVS.
SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
B.RAVISANKAR
ASTRID STEREENA MATHEW
SWATHY MENON(K/001364/2024)
RESPONDENT:
KANNAPPANUNNI.N., AGED 55 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAN, NAYADIKKUNNATH HOUSE,
THEKKUNURI PO, KARALMANNA,
CHERPULLASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
PIN - 679506
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:69643
Mat Appeal 664/24
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant assails the order of the learned Family Court,
Ottappalam, in I.A.No.1/2024 in I.A.No.2/2024 in O.P.No.502/2021, to
the extent to which it has imposed costs on her, to an amount of
Rs.10,000/-, as a condition for setting aside the earlier ex parte decree
in the Original Petition.
2. Smt.Shameena Salahudheen - learned counsel for the
appellant, argued that the imposition of cost of Rs.10,000/- on her
client as a condition for setting aside the decree is onerous, because she
is working as a clinical staff in a hospital, availing a meager sum as
salary. She added that, in any event, it was unnecessary for the learned
Family Court to have imposed such costs when sufficient cause had
been shown by her client to have the ex parte decree set aside.
3. When we heard this matter on 29.07.2024 for admission, we
had stayed the imposition of costs, but allowed all other proceedings in
the Original Petition.
4. We notice from the endorsements on the file that summons
2024:KER:69643
from this Court has been validly served on the respondent. However, he
has chosen not to be present in person, or to be represented through
counsel; thus inferentially guiding us to the impression that he has
nothing to offer in answer to the assertions made in this Appeal.
5. When we examine the impugned order of the learned
Family Court, it is clear that, after recording that the summons issued
to the appellant in O.P.No.502/2021 had been returned with the
endorsement 'unclaimed', it then proceeds to record the opinion that
she must be given an opportunity to contest the case. However, it then
went on to say that the 'inconvenience caused to the opposite party
must be compensated'; and thus imposed the costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore
approach of the learned Family Court because, unless the respondent
herein had shown cause for compensation to such an amount, it could
not have been imposed it as a matter of routine, particularly when the
plea before it was only for setting aside an earlier ex parte decree,
which apparently was not opposed, except saying that it will cause the
respondent further harassment.
2024:KER:69643
In the afore circumstances, we allow this Appeal and modify the
impugned condition imposed on the appellant, of payment of
Rs.10,000/- as costs, reducing it to a sum of Rs.1,000/-. This shall be
remitted by the appellant before the learned Family Court within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
RR
