Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed against the order in I.A.No.619 of 2013 in O.P.No.1271 of 2010 of the Family Court, Thrissur.
2. The petitioner was the respondent in the said original petition. He is the husband of the respondent herein. The said original petition was filed by the respondent under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for a decree of dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Family Court has not considered the entire matter in its correct perspective. Even if it is assumed that there is a delay in filing the application, it is only by 27 days.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant’s contention was that he was not aware about the posting of the case on 03.12.2012. But we notice that even on subsequent posting days also he was not present and he was not represented by a counsel also, for which no explanation has been offered in the affidavit in support of the application. Therefore, the view taken by the court below cannot be said to be unjustified.
5. We have perused the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court. The original petition was posted to 03.12.2012, admittedly. Before the said date it was posted to 02.11.2012 and on that day there was no sitting for the court. Therefore, it was adjourned to 03.12.2012. On that day the respondent was present but the appellant was absent. Hence, he was set exparte. The case was posted to 13.12.2012 for the affidavit of the appellant and the affidavit was filed on that day and the petition was posted for orders to 22.12.2012. As the order was not ready on that day, the case was again adjourned for orders to 29.12.2012 and the order was pronounced on that day.
6. As per the averments in the affidavit filed by the appellant before the Family Court, actually the order was pronounced on 22.12.2012, which is not correct. It is observed in the order that even if the petitioner was not able to appear before the court on 03.12.2012, he had obtained opportunities to appear before the court on the subsequent posting dates, for which no reasons have been assigned.
7. We have heard the learned counsel on these aspects.
It is clear that no reasons have been pointed out for the non-appearance of the appellant on the subsequent days also. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to accept the contentions of the appellant and to interfere with the order now passed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR (JUDGE) Sd/- P.V.ASHA (JUDGE) // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/09/10