The Kerala High Court has dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a woman seeking to reopen an ex-parte divorce decree granted in favour of her husband. The Court found that the Family Court had correctly concluded that notices were duly served on the wife and that there was no justification for setting aside the decree.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. delivered the judgment on 26 May 2026 in Sujithra P.A. v. Anishkumar T.R..
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband before the Family Court at North Paravur. During the proceedings, the wife was set ex-parte, following which the Family Court granted an ex-parte decree of divorce on 10 September 2024.
The wife later approached the court seeking to set aside the decree and requested condonation of a delay of 160 days. She claimed that she had never received the notices issued by the Family Court and became aware of the divorce decree only later.
Initially, the Family Court allowed her application subject to payment of costs. However, that order was challenged before the High Court, which remanded the matter back to the Family Court for a fresh examination after recording evidence from both sides.
During the fresh proceedings, the wife alleged that the postal notices had been received by another person through impersonation and that the signatures on the acknowledgement cards were forged.
To support her case, she examined postal officials, including the Postmaster and the Postman. The husband also produced documentary evidence, including postal records and admitted signatures of the wife.
The postal officials testified that the notices were personally delivered after verification of the recipient's identity through an Aadhaar card. The delivery records also contained the Aadhaar number of the recipient. According to the evidence, the wife signed both the acknowledgement card and delivery manifest in the presence of the postman.
The Family Court additionally compared the disputed signatures with signatures appearing in other court records and found them to be similar. Based on this material, it concluded that the notices had been properly served.
Affirming the Family Court's findings, the High Court observed:
“The Family Court has appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and in view of the overwhelming evidence regarding service of notice on the appellant, it could only have dismissed the petition.”
The Bench also noted that matrimonial matters require particular caution when courts consider applications filed after the expiry of the appeal period.
The Court observed that delays in challenging divorce decrees can significantly affect the rights of parties, especially when marital status has subsequently changed. In the present case, the husband had entered into another marriage after the appeal period had expired.
Finding no illegality, perversity, or error in the Family Court's assessment of the evidence, the Kerala High Court declined to interfere with the impugned orders.
The Bench held that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it without costs, thereby allowing the ex-parte divorce decree to remain in force.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sujithra P.A. v. Anishkumar T.R.
Case Number: Mat. Appeal No. 296 of 2026
Judges: Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K.
Decision Date: 26 May 2026
