Kerala HC Upholds Ex Parte Divorce Decree After Postman's Evidence Disproves Wife's Forgery Claim
The Kerala High Court dismissed a wife's appeal against an ex parte divorce decree, finding postal and oral evidence conclusively proved she had received court notices despite her forgery allegation.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a wife challenging the Family Court, North Paravur's refusal to set aside an ex parte divorce decree passed against her. The wife, Sujithra P.A., had claimed she never received the court's registered notices and that her signature on the acknowledgment card was forged. After a remand that allowed both parties to lead evidence, the Family Court found the claim unsustainable. The Division Bench agreed, holding that the evidence on record left no room to interfere. The bench also observed that in matrimonial matters, delay in challenging ex parte decrees carries serious consequences where third-party rights have since arisen.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The husband, Anishkumar T.R., filed O.P.No.329/2024 before the Family Court, North Paravur, seeking a decree of divorce. Sujithra P.A., the wife, was set ex parte in those proceedings. On 10 September 2024, the Family Court granted an ex parte decree of divorce.
On learning of the decree, Sujithra filed two interlocutory applications: one to set aside the ex parte decree and another to condone a delay of 160 days in filing that application. Her case was that the registered notices from the Family Court had never been served on her and that someone had impersonated her and forged her signature on the acknowledgment due card.
The Family Court initially allowed the applications on 4 August 2025, subject to payment of costs of ₹3,000 to the respondent. Anishkumar challenged that order before the Kerala High Court in Mat.Appeal No.816 of 2025. The High Court set aside the Family Court's order and directed it to reconsider the matter after granting both parties an opportunity to lead evidence, since disputed questions of fact were involved.
On remand, the Family Court permitted both sides to adduce evidence and, on the basis of that evidence, dismissed Sujithra's applications. She then filed the present Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026.
The Forgery Allegation and the Evidence Led
Before the Family Court on remand, Sujithra reiterated that the summons sent by registered post had been accepted by someone else through impersonation and that her signature on the acknowledgment card was forged. To support this, she examined the Postmaster as PW1 and the Postman as PW2. The delivery manifests were marked as Exts.X1 and X2 through these witnesses. The respondent produced Exts.B1 to B3, which included certified copies of the marriage register and a vakalath dated 24 March 2023 that Sujithra had herself filed in a connected matter, O.P.No.969/2023.
PW1, the Postmaster, stated that the signatures in the Exts.X1 and X2 delivery manifests and the signatures in the acknowledgment due card were similar to each other, even if the signature in a recent vakalath filed by the appellant in the Family Court appeared different. PW1 also stated that Ext.B1, the postal article, contained the Aadhaar number of the recipient, and that the postal records indicated the disputed articles were personally served to the addressee based on identity proof.
PW2, the Postman who had actually delivered the articles, gave direct testimony. He stated that since the addressee was not familiar to him at the time of delivering the first postal article covered by Ext.X1, he had verified her identity by checking her identity card. He noted that the addressee was alone inside the house at the time. He recorded her Aadhaar card number in the Ext.X1 delivery manifest. He further stated that the appellant had signed both the acknowledgment card and the delivery manifest in his presence.
The Family Court compared the disputed signature on the acknowledgment card with the admitted signatures of Sujithra in Exts.B2 and B3 — the marriage register and the 2023 vakalath — and found them similar. On the basis of the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the documentary comparison, the Family Court concluded that two registered notices had been served on Sujithra on 6 June 2024 and 9 July 2024 respectively. The applications were accordingly dismissed.
How the Division Bench Reasoned
Justice Preeta A.K., writing the judgment for the bench, found that the Family Court had appreciated the evidence in its right perspective. Given the overwhelming evidence regarding service of notice, the bench held that the Family Court could only have dismissed the petitions.
The bench went further to address the broader concern in matrimonial disputes. It observed that in matters relating to dissolution of marriage, delay in challenging a Family Court order is fatal because parties may alter their status after the appeal period expires. In this case, the respondent had contracted another marriage on 7 March 2025 after the appeal period. The bench stated that great care and caution must be exercised while condoning delay in filing applications to set aside ex parte decrees after the appeal period, as doing so affects the rights of third parties.
The bench found no illegality or perversity in the Family Court's findings and saw no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.
Outcome
The Division Bench dismissed Mat.Appeal No.296 of 2026 as devoid of merits. No costs were awarded.