Kerala High Court
Krishnakumari vs Reshma R. Nair on 22 August, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:63940
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 IN IA 1/2024
IN RP NO.13 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN RP NO.13/2024 & IA NO.1/2024:
1 KRISHNAKUMARI, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O RAJASEKHARAN NAIR,
MANKUZHIYIL MANGALATHU HOUSE,
PULLIKKANAKKU P O,
KAYAMKULAM TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690537.
2 DHANYA, AGED 37 YEARS
D/O RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
MANKUZHIYIL MANGALATHU HOUSE,
PULLIKKANAKKU P O,
KAYAMKULAM TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 690537.
BY ADV
SHRI.SARATH M.S.
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
-2-
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN RP NO.13/2024 & IA NO.1/2024:
RESHMA R. NAIR
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
AMBIKA R NAIR, W/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
CHANDRA BHAVANAM, EAST OTHERA,
THIRUVALLA TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689546
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JERRY M VARGHESE
SMT.LEKSHMI S. NAIR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This Appeal is against the order of the
learned Family Court, Thiruvalla, dismissing
RP No.13/2024 - filed by the petitioners in
OP No. 284/2019 (appellants herein).
2. Sri.M.S.Sarath - learned counsel for
the appellants, conceded that there was a
delay of 348 days in filing RP No.13/2024 to
set aside the ex parte decree in OP
No.284/2019, filed by the respondents herein;
and that the same was sought to be explained
and condoned through IA No.1/2024. He
submitted that both the applications - to
condone the delay and the Restoration
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
Application - have now been dismissed; and
hence that his clients have been constrained
to approach this Court.
3. Sri.M.S.Sarath, thereafter, argued
that this is a hard case for his clients
because, they are the mother-in-law and
sister-in-law respectively of the respondent;
and that the latter had filed the Original
Petition against them, as also her husband -
a certain Sri.Dhanesh, seeking recovery of
her gold ornaments and alleged patrimony. He
submitted that his clients were under the
impression that Sri.Dhanesh - who is the son
of the 1st appellant and the brother of the
2nd appellant - would contest the case, but
that he apparently did not do so; and that
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
his clients suspect that this was on account
of the collusion he has with the respondent.
He thus prayed that the Restoration
Application be allowed, agreeing to abide by
any condition that this Court may fix.
4. In response, Sri.Jerry M.Varghese -
learned counsel for the respondent, submitted
that the afore assertions are totally untrue
and that the real collusion is between the
aforesaid Sri.Dhanesh and the appellants. He
argued that the attempt of the appellants is
to collude with Sri.Dhanesh, to denude the
benefits of the decree to his client; and
prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.
5. As an alternative submission,
Sri.Jerry M.Varghese pleaded that, if this
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
Court is inclined, for any reason, to find
favour of the appellants, then the
Restoration Application be allowed only on
condition that they furnish full security for
the decree amount, as presently awarded. He
submitted that this is more so because, when
Sri.Dhanesh has not challenged the decree,
the same is binding against him.
6. We find that the afore alternate
suggestion of Sri.Jerry M.Varghese is the
most apposite in the given circumstances,
because that will balance the rival interests
substantially.
7. We, therefore, put it to
Sri.M.S.Sarath whether his clients are
willing to furnish security for the decreed
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
amount, to which, his answer was to the
affirmative.
In the afore circumstances, we allow
this Appeal and set aside the impugned order;
thus consequently allowing IA No.1/2024 in RP
No.13/2024, as also the said R.P. This will,
however, be on condition that the appellants
furnish security for the decreed amount in
full, to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court, within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
We reiteratingly clarify that, though
we have allowed the R.P., it will only
construe that the decree against the
appellants alone has been set aside.
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
Needless to say, if the condition above
is not complied with by the appellants within
the time frame granted, the benefit of this
judgment will be lost to them and this Appeal
will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv
JUDGE
2025:KER:63940
MAT.APPEAL NO. 731 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 731/2025
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE R 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN R P
NO13 OF 2024 IN O P NO 284 OF 2019 AND
I A NO1 OF 2024 IN R P NO13 OF 2024
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT TIRUVALLA
