Somasundaran (appellant/respondent-husband) challenged an order dated 18.11.2015 of the Family Court, Tirur (OP No. 303/2015) in this matrimonial appeal before the Kerala High Court. The appeal was filed with a delay-condonation application (C.M. Application No. 1/2025) in which the appellant pleaded incapacity to file in time and also contested the extent of property directed to be sold under the impugned order, contending that only a part — not the whole — of the property needed to be sold.\n\nOn 14.03.2025, the Division Bench required the appellant to deposit the entire amount as a condition for any indulgence, noting that he must demonstrate bonafides. Counsel sought two days to confer with his client. On 24.03.2025, there was no appearance and no deposit was reported. On 28.03.2025, the position remained unchanged — the appellant neither appeared nor made any deposit.\n\nThe court, finding that the appellant had shown no interest in prosecuting the appeal, dismissed it for default.
Somasundaran v. Sunitha K.P.
Bench of 2 · Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Why it matters
ListenAdvocates handling matrimonial appeals must advise clients that non-compliance with a court-imposed deposit condition, coupled with non-appearance, will swiftly result in dismissal for default — this order illustrates the Kerala High Court's strict approach to enforcing such conditions in family-court appeals.
Summary
Key principle
A matrimonial appellant who fails to appear or comply with a court-imposed condition of depositing the disputed amount — even after repeated opportunities — demonstrates want of interest in prosecuting the appeal and is liable to dismissal for default.
Holding
Dismissed — the appellant's repeated non-appearance and failure to deposit the amount directed by the court demonstrated that he was not interested in prosecuting the matrimonial appeal, warranting dismissal for default.