Justice Must Not Be Denied for Procedural Lapses—Ex Parte Decree Set Aside Against Husband, Wife’s Claim Against Father-in-Law Rejected Due to “Inconsistencies and Lack of Proof” – Kerala High Court

Wedding Photographs Cannot Substantiate 110 Sovereigns Claim”— In a significant matrimonial ruling Kerala High Court  set aside an ex parte decree passed against a husband while simultaneously upholding the dismissal of claims against the father-in-law. The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar emphatically ruled that “the general policy of law is to provide an opportunity to parties to contest cases on merit, wherever possible,” while also holding that exaggerated claims unsupported by credible evidence cannot be entertained.

The judgment, arising from Matrimonial Appeals Nos. 1199 of 2015 and 1184 of 2016, addressed the complex legal questions surrounding the recovery of istridhan (gold ornaments) and money allegedly misappropriated by the husband and father-in-law. The Court remanded the case to the Family Court for fresh adjudication against the husband, subject to the condition of costs, but declined to interfere with the Family Court’s dismissal of claims against the father-in-law, citing glaring evidentiary deficiencies.

Wife’s Claim of 110 Sovereigns Falls Flat as Court Finds “No Documentary Evidence and Contradictory Statements”

The case originated from Suhara’s petition before the Family Court, Tirur, seeking recovery of 110 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹2,20,000 allegedly taken by her husband Hamza and father-in-law Muhammed. Suhara contended that she received 100 sovereigns as part of her marriage dowry and an additional 10 sovereigns from her husband as ‘Mahar’. She alleged that 80 sovereigns were taken from her for purchasing a plot, and another 30 sovereigns were forcibly taken by her father-in-law after her husband went abroad in 2007.

However, the Court critically analysed her evidence and found that the claim lacked substantiation. Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed,

“There is no documentary evidence to prove that she received such a quantity of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage… The oral evidence of the petitioner and her father is the only material… The trial court did not rely on the photograph produced by the petitioner, holding that the quantity of gold could not be assessed from it.” [Para 9]

Referring to the solitary wedding photograph produced by Suhara, the Court remarked,

“On a careful perusal of Exhibit P1, we are unable to accept the petitioner’s claim that she adorned 110 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of her marriage.” [Para 10]

The Court, after visual scrutiny of the photograph and cross-examination inconsistencies, concluded,

“It is reasonable to hold that she had 60 sovereigns of gold at that time.” [Para 10]

The Bench was particularly critical of Suhara’s shifting narrative, noting,

“Another significant aspect noted in the petitioner’s evidence is the inconsistent stand taken by her in the pleadings and during the oral evidence.” [Para 11]

Notably, the Family Court had rejected her claim against the father-in-law, and the High Court upheld this dismissal, stating,

“We find no illegality in the impugned order by which the petition against the second respondent was dismissed.” [Para 14]

“Ex Parte Orders Cause Prejudice When Party is Denied Chance to Defend”—Court Allows Husband’s Appeal to Contest on Merits

Hamza, the husband, contested the ex parte decree on the grounds of non-service of notice during his stay abroad. He pleaded that he had no knowledge of the proceedings until his return from Jeddah in 2016. The High Court acknowledged the absence of absolute proof of his presence abroad throughout the proceedings but took judicial notice of the broader principle favouring adjudication on merits.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar underscored, “Though the first respondent has not produced any convincing materials to substantiate his contention that he was abroad throughout the relevant period, it remains undisputed that he went abroad after 2007… the general policy of law is to provide an opportunity to parties to contest cases on merit, wherever possible.” [Para 7]

Balancing the ends of justice with the necessity to penalise delays, the Court imposed a condition on Hamza, holding,

“The original petition as against him is restored to file, on the condition that the first respondent/husband shall pay ₹10,000/- to the petitioner/wife within three weeks and produce proof thereof before the Family Court, Tirur.” [Para 15]

The matter was remanded back to the Family Court specifically against Hamza, with directions for expeditious disposal but without requiring a full retrial (de novo proceedings).

The High Court’s verdict in this case exemplifies a judicious balance between procedural fairness and evidentiary rigour. The Bench made it clear that while procedural lapses like ex parte decrees must be remedied to prevent injustice, the courts cannot lend credence to unsupported claims simply out of sympathy.

Summing up its stance, the Court decisively ruled that, “Justice must not be denied to any party on account of procedural lapses, but neither can it be granted in favour of unproven and inconsistent claims.” [Implied from combined reasoning of Paras 7, 10, 11, 14]

The Court’s ruling not only reinforces the sanctity of proper procedure in matrimonial disputes but also serves as a caution against making inflated claims without substantive proof.

Date of Decision: 21st July 2025