JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. In this appeal, the appellants challenge Annexure A16 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, in E.P.No.22/2019 in O.P.No.953/2015 2. The impugned order was necessitated because, the appellants claim that they have no means to satisfy the decree in O.P.No.953/2015; and the learned Family Court found that such a plea is not maintainable when it has already been found that he was entrusted the gold ornaments and the money that has been sought by the 1 st respondent - wife. The appellants challenge this order on the ground that the decree in question is an ex parte one and that they have already moved an application to have it set aside. 3. Before we continue to consider this matter, we must record that the summons issued by this Court to the 2 nd respondent has not returned. However, in view of the opinion that we will indite presently, we are of the view that we will be justified in disposing of this appeal even without him entering appearance, since it will cause him no prejudice. 4. Smt.Sujini.S - learned Counsel for the appellants argued in terms of the afore contentions of her clients, saying that when they are facing an ex parte decree, which was issued without considering any of the relevant facts, they cannot be mulcted with the liability to act as per the same, particularly, when there was no entrustment of gold or money. She thus reiteratingly prayed that Annexure A16 be set aside. 5. However, Sri.Anzar Basheer, appearing for the respondents, submitted that a plea of no means could never have been raised by the appellants in answer to the judgment and decree, in which the Court has already found that the gold and the money ordered to be returned was entrusted to the appellants. He thus prayed that this appeal be dismissed. He then added that, in fact, the appellants had been arrested and brought to the Court once before and that they had paid Rs 2 lakhs and that hence any further challenge against Annexure A16 is untenable. 6. We find some force in the afore submission of the respondents because, admittedly, the judgment and decree in question has concluded that the appellants were entrusted with the gold and money ordered to be returned by them from the 1 st respondent herein. 6. We find some force in the afore submission of the respondents because, admittedly, the judgment and decree in question has concluded that the appellants were entrusted with the gold and money ordered to be returned by them from the 1 st respondent herein. Obviously, a plea of no means could never have been impelled by them; and we notice that this has been done on their assertion that the said decree was an ex parte. Interestingly, Smt.Sujini.S admits at the same breadth that her client has moved an application to have the ex parte decree set aside; but this by itself would not have permitted him to impel a claim of no means. In the above circumstances, we do not find Annexure A16 to be in any manner, in error and hence find no reason to interfere with this. This appeal is thus dismissed, however, clarifying that every other liberty that may be available to the parties in law are left open.