IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 Mat.Appeal.No. 788 of 2009(B) ---------------------------- OS.353/2004 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT ---------------------------------- VELAYUDHANKUTTY, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI, PANTHIRIKKAL PADINJATTATHIL, PUNNATHALA CHERRY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS : PLAINTIFFS ------------------------- 1. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.PRABHAVATHY AMMA, PALOTTU VADAKKATHIL, MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. ANU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SANTHAKUMARI, PALOTTU VADAKKATHIL, MEENATHU CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1-2 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ********************** Mat.Appeal No.788 of 2009 ********************* Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010 ORDER/JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The matter has come up for hearing at the instance of the respondent. The delay was condoned vide order dated 22.12.2009 subject to conditions which were to be complied with by 22.02.2010. Admittedly the conditions have not been complied with. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant submits that the petitioner/appellant having settled the disputes with the respondents, does not now want to prosecute this appeal and the application for condonation of delay. 2. In the result: a) The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed; b) Consequently the Matrimonial Appeal shall stand rejected as barred by limitation. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS , JUDGE) rtr/