SUJITHRA P.A vs ANISHKUMAR T.R.

Court
Kerala High Court

Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026 1 2026:KER:37012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE PREETA A.K.
TH
TUESDAY, THE 26 DAY OF MAY 2026 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1948
MAT.APPEAL NO. 296 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2026 IN IA 1/2025 AND IA
NO.16 OF 2025 OF FAMILY COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
OP NO.329 OF 2024 OF FAMILY COURT, NORTH PARAVUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SUJITHRA P.A
AGED 33 YEARS
D/O AYYAPPANKUTTY, PALLATH HOUSE, PULIPARAMBU,
POYYA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680733
BY ADVS. SHRI.V.A.HAKEEM
SMT.HABNAM HAKEEM
SHRI.RAHUL O.
SMT.NIFITHA K.A.
SMT.HIMA M.
SHRI.RAHSAL RAHMAN
SMT.VARSHA S. DAS
SMT.NIRANJANA K. S.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANISHKUMAR T.R.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O RAJAN T.S., THUNDATHIL HOUSE,
PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O., NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683594
BY ADV SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026 2 2026:KER:37012
JUDGMENT “C.R.”
PREETA A.K., J.
The appellant who was the respondent in O.P.No.329/2024 on
the files of Family Court, North Paravur, has filed this Mat.Appeal
challenging the orders of the Family Court, North Paravur, dismissing
I.A.No.1/2025 and I.A.No.16/2025 in O.P.No.329/2024.
2. O.P.No.329/2024 was filed by the husband/respondent
herein seeking a decree of divorce. In the proceedings before the
Family Court, the appellant/wife was set ex parte. Vide order dated
10/09/2024, the Family Court, N.Paravur granted an ex parte decree of
divorce. On coming to know of the decree, the appellant filed an
application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an
application for condoning the delay of 160 days in filing the application
for setting aside the ex parte decree. The reason for delay as raised by
the appellant was that the registered notice from the Family Court was
not served on the appellant.
3. Vide order dated 04/08/2025, the Family Court,
N.Paravur, allowed the application on payment of cost of 3,000/- to the ₹
respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent herein filed an appeal
before this Court as Mat.Appeal No.816 of 2025. This Court, after
considering the rival contentions, set aside the order passed by the
Family Court and directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter

Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026 3 2026:KER:37012
on merits after granting an opportunity to the parties for leading
evidence as the matter involved disputed questions of facts. On
remand, the trial court permitted both parties to let in evidence and
based on the evidence on record, dismissed the petitions filed by the
appellant. Aggrieved thereby, this Mat.Appeal is preferred.
4. The appellant in this Mat.Appeal has reiterated her
contention that she was unaware of the pendency of the original
petition seeking divorce and that the summons issued from the trial
court through registered post was accepted by someone else by
impersonation and that her signature was forged in the
acknowledgment due card. Both parties adduced evidence and the
appellant examined the Postmaster and the Postman as PW1 and PW2
respectively and Exts.X1 and X2 were marked through them. The
respondent produced Exts.B1 to B3 documents. The Family Court
considered the evidence of PW1 wherein he had categorically stated
that the signatures in Exts.X1 and X2 delivery manifest and the
signatures in the acknowledgment due card are similar even if the
signature in a recent vakalath of the appellant filed in Family Court is
different. The Family Court also relied on the statement of PW1 that
Ext.B1 postal article containing Aadhaar number of the recipient and
the postal records indicate that the disputed postal articles were
personally served to the addressee based on the identity proof. This
was corroborated by PW2 wherein he has stated that the postal articles

Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026 4 2026:KER:37012
referred to in Exts.X1 and X2 were served by him to the addressee
referred therein and that since the addressee was not familiar to him,
during the delivery of the first postal article referred in Ext.X1, he had
verified the identity by perusing the identity card of the addressee who
alone was present inside the house and he could directly serve both the
postal articles referred in Exts.X1 and X2 and noted the Aadhaar card
number of the addressee in Ext.X1 delivery manifest. He added that
the appellant had thereafter signed in the acknowledgment card as
well as the delivery manifest in his presence. It is also seen from the
records that the respondent had produced certified copies of marriage
register and vakalath dated 24/03/2023 submitted by the appellant in
connected O.P.No.969/2023 and the court had compared the signatures
with the disputed signature found in acknowledgment card and found
that they were similar. Therefore relying on the oral testimony of
PW1, PW2 and the admitted signature of the appellant in Exts.B2 and
B3 documents, the Family Court came to the conclusion that two
registered notices issued from Family Court, N.Paravur, were served
on her on 06/06/2024 and on 09/07/2024 respectively, and thus
rejected the contention of the appellant regarding non-receipt of the
notices from Family Court. The interlocutory applications filed by the
appellant were thus dismissed.
5. On an appreciation of the findings on record, we find that
the Family Court has appreciated the evidence in its right perspective

Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026 5 2026:KER:37012
and in view of the overwhelming evidence regarding service of notice
on the appellant, it could only have dismissed the petition.
6. 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, as in this case. After the appeal period, the
respondent has contracted another marriage on 07/03/2025. 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.
7. We find no illegality or perversity in the findings of the
Family Court and hence there is no reason to interfere with the orders
impugned.
Accordingly, the Mat. Appeal is devoid of merits and is
dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE

Sd/-
PREETA A.K.
JUDGE
ami/