Kerala High Court
Thettath Asokan vs K P Sujina on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
2025:KER:61304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2012 IN OA NO.82 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THETTATH ASOKAN
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O CHANTHAN,THETTATH
VEETIL,PARAKKAVAYALIL,KEDAVOOR AMSOM
DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673573
2 THETTATH SAROJINI,W/O ASOKAN,THETTATH VE
AGED 54 YEARS, W/O ASOKAN,THETTATH
VEETIL,PARAKKAVAYALIL,KEDAVOOR AMSOM
DESOM,KOZHIKODE TALUK,KOZHIKODE-673573
3 SHIJU. P.K,
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O ASOKAN ,THETTATH VEETIL
PARAKAVAYAL,KEDAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT - 673573
4 SHINI. P.K,
AGED 45 YEARS, D/O ASOKAN , THETTATH VEETIL
PARAKAVAYAL, KEDAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT -673573
APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
2025:KER:61304
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
-: 2 :-
APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 IN THE APPEAL AS PER ORDER
DATED 28/3/2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN MAT APPEAL
535/2014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
K.P.SUJINA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O CHANDRAN,KOMALA
VILLA,KUNNAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE-673571
BY ADV SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.550/2014, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61304
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
-: 3 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2014
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2013 IN OA NO.82 OF 2012 OF
FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THETTATH ASOKAN
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O CHANTHAN, THETTATH VEETIL,
PARAKKAVAYALIL, KEDAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE
TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 573.
2 THETTATH SAROJINI
AGED 54 YEARS, W/O ASOKAN, THETTATH VEETIL,
PARAKKAVAYALIL, KEDAVOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE
TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 573
3 SHIJU. P.K
S/O ASOKAN, THETTATH VEETIL PARAKAVAYAL, KEDAVOOR
AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 573
4 SHINI. P.K
D/O ASOKAN, THETTATH VEETIL PARAKAVAYAL, KEDAVOOR
AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 573
APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL
APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 IN THE APPEAL AS PER ORDER
2025:KER:61304
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
-: 4 :-
DATED 28/3/2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN MAT APPEAL
550/2014.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
K P SUJINA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O CHANDRAN, KOMALA VILLA, KUNNAMANGALAM,
KOZHIKODE - 673 572.
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
13.08.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.535/2014, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:61304
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2025
JUDGMENT
Sathish Ninan, J.
The original petition seeking partition was decreed ex
parte by the Family Court. The application filed as
I.A.No.1396 of 2012, seeking to set aside the ex parte
decree, was dismissed by the Family Court. Mat.Appeal No.550
of 2014 is filed challenging such order. Mat.Appeal No.535
of 2014 has been filed challenging the ex parte judgment and
decree in the original petition. For the sake of
convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status
before the Family Court.
2. The original petition is filed against the in-laws
of the petitioner (divorced wife), seeking partition of a
property which stands in the name of the petitioner and the
respondents. The contention of the respondents appear to be
that the petitioner does not have any right over the
2025:KER:61304
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
property and that the property was purchased utilising the
funds of their son. Consequent on the failure of the
respondents to appear for trial, the original petition was
decreed ex parte.
3. Seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, the
respondents filed I.A.No.1396 of 2012. The Family Court
dismissed the application.
4. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. The respondents had filed their objection/counter
to the original petition before the Family Court. The
petitioner's witnesses were cross-examined. They had also
filed their proof affidavit. Thus, the respondents have been
taking part in the proceedings.
6. It is the case of the respondents that the failure
to appear to give evidence, in spite of having filed a proof
affidavit was due to the 1st respondent suffering from
urinary stone complaints. The prescription of a doctor was
produced along with the application.
7. The court held that there is no material to
2025:KER:61304
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
indicate that there was any follow-up treatment. It was also
noticed that several adjournments were granted to the
respondents for evidence, in spite of which they failed to
appear.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants-respondents
in the original petition brought to our notice that an
application was filed before the Family Court on 04.10.2012
seeking adjournment on the ground of medical ailments.
However, the application was returned unnumbered, as the
case was already taken up for orders.
9. The application seeking to set aside the ex parte
decree has been filed within time. While it is true that
several adjournments are seen to have been granted to the
respondents to adduce evidence, which they failed to avail,
considering the entire facts and circumstances as above, we
are of the opinion that an opportunity could be granted to
the respondents to contest the matter and invite a judgment
on merits. The inconvenience caused to the petitioner, who
is the respondent in the appeal, can be compensated by way
2025:KER:61304
Mat.Appeal Nos.535 and 550 of 2014
of costs.
10. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The decree
and judgment in O.A.No.82 of 2012 of the Family Court,
Kozhikode will stand set aside and the original application
will stand restored back to file. However, this shall be
subject to the condition that the appellants pay an amount
of Rs.25,000/- as costs, to the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent before this Court on or before
26.08.2025. On the original petition restored back to file,
the court shall proceed to dispose of the same afresh, after
affording opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.
For verifying compliance, post on 27.08.2025.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
yd
