IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 746 of 2009() ---------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 15-6-2009 IN I.A.1603/2008 IN O.P.518/2007 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD) APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------ SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR KALATHIL VEEDU, THACHANKAD MATHUR, ALATHUR (REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANANTHAKRISHNAN S/O. SIVARAMAN NAIR, DEVI KRIPA, PALLAMCHATHANUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.) BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUJATHA, W/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, 'SRUTHI', AMBATTU, PALLAMCHATHANUR, PALAKKAD 2. VIMAL, S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 18, 'SRUTHI', AMBATTU, PALLAMCHATHANUR, PALAKKAD. 3. NIRMAL, S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 11, 'SRUTHI' AMBATTU, PALLAMCHATHANUR, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS FOR R1-3 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jj THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mat. Appeal No: 746 of 2009 & C.M.Appln No:2732 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th August, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is filed with an application for condonation of delay of one day against a decree for maintenance. We looked into the merits of the appeal. We heard counsel on both sides. 2. The appellant admits that he is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondents 2 and 3. The appellant works in Saudi Arabia. The wife and children sued him for maintenance in 2007. 3. Before the commencement of this litigation, the husband appears to have sued the wife for injunction against trespass into some item of property. For this, he had given a power of attorney to his brother. The husband did not contest the application for maintenance. Later, through his power of attorney/brother, he sought that the ex parte decree be set aside. Though the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed within the period prescribed for such purpose, we find Mat.Appeal 746/09 & C.M.Appln. 2732/2009 2 formidable wisdom in the view taken by the learned Judge of the Family Court that the appellant before us, the husband, was attempting to evade action by the wife and children. We say this because, as already noted, the husband had given power of attorney to the brother before the application for maintenance was filed. At that time, he had already sued the wife for injunction in relation to property. The inference that we see in the impugned order that the husband or his representative was, essentially, watching the proceedings, yet not participating, is not unreasonable. 4. With this, we thought that it would be appropriate to look into the merits of the ex parte decree as well, though there is no appeal against that decree, on its merits. The pointed submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the second plaintiff before the court below is the 18 year old son who could not have sued the father for maintenance. The learned Judge of the Family Court had been cautious in this aspect also. No decree is granted in favour of the son. The wife is granted maintenance at the rate of ` 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and the minor daughter is granted maintenance at the rate of ` 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) Mat.Appeal 746/09 & C.M.Appln. 2732/2009 3 per month. Such amounts are granted only from the date of petition. We do not find any ground of injustice having been meted out to the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, though the delay in instituting this appeal is only one day, we do not find any ground to condone that and entertain the appeal. In the result, the C.M Application and the appeal are dismissed in limine. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj Mat.Appeal 746/09 & C.M.Appln. 2732/2009 4