A.Hariprasad, J.
This appeal is filed against the judgment of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.No.500 of 2003 wherein the appellant was set ex parte and the impugned decree was passed against him.
2. The respondent claimed to be the wife of the appellant and she contended that their marriage was performed on 21.12.1977 in accordance with the rites prevalent among their community. The respondent-wife raised monetary claims against the appellant and by the impugned ex parte decree, the court below allowed the claims of the wife.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was a mental patient roaming around. He could not appear before the court below and contest the case on account of his mental illness. He came up before this Court when he was in a period of lucid interval. It is seen from the records that this appeal was filed with a delay of 3292 days. As per order dated 22.07.2013, this Court condoned the delay recording the submission that there was no objection on the side of the respondent in doing so. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not married the respondent and in fact he is having another wife and children. Since he could not appear before the court below and raise appropriate contentions, the ex parte decree happened to be passed. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the original petition was instituted in the year 2003, we are of the view that the court below can be directed to dispose the matter on merit, as expeditiously as possible, after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce evidence.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below are set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration after affording an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 30.06.2014. The appellant shall file his counter statement in the original petition within a period of 15 days thereafter and the court below shall dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.
V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks